Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

American Government Lecture Two 2007

2007-09-19T15:54:33Z

JessicaS:

'''American Government'''

'''Second Lecture - BILL OF RIGHTS & FEDERALISM'''

'''Instructor: Andy Schlafly'''

==Introduction==

The Amendments to the [[Constitution]] dominate current legal and political controversies. The [[Bill of Rights]] – Amendments one through ten – and the Fourteenth Amendment have wrought enormous changes. We explain the [[Bill of Rights]] now, and reach the Fourteenth Amendment in a future class.

==[[Bill of Rights]]==

Opposition was so strong to the [[Constitution]] that its supporters had to promise a “[[Bill of Rights]].” But ratification only required nine out of thirteen states (Article VII), and that was attained when a convention in [[New Hampshire]] approved it (57-47) on June 21, 1788. But the large states of [[Virginia]] and [[New York]] had not yet joined the [[Union]], and the [[Anti-Federalists]] were strong in both states. These were the home states of [[Madison]] and [[Hamilton]], respectively, the biggest supporters of the [[Constitution]].

[[Virginia]] only ratified the [[Constitution]] by adding a [[Bill of Rights]] for 20 changes, and demanding 20 other changes too. In [[New York]], defeat seemed likely until [[Hamilton]] cleverly procured a delay to await news from [[New Hampshire]] and [[Virginia]]. When news of their ratification reached [[New York]], sentiment moved in favor of the [[Constitution]] and it narrowly passed on July 26, 1788. The vote was a very close 30-27. Still, [[New York]] demanded another constitutional convention to add a [[Bill of Rights]].

To avoid another constitutional convention, the first [[Congress]] passed 12 constitutional amendments and sent them to the states for ratification. The states ratified ten of them by the end of 1791, and they became known as the “[[Bill of Rights]]” because they protect the people against certain [[government]] interference.

The [[Bill of Rights]] is very short: you could completely memorize them in a few days. They are set forth on pages 330-31 of the textbook. What they mean, however, could fill an entire library.

The first two amendments establish fundamental freedoms, including the right to keep and bear arms. The third amendment prohibits placing troops in people’s homes in time of peace. The fourth through eighth amendments establish legal rights, particularly for the accused. The ninth amendment is a vague protection of individual rights, and the tenth amendment protects state rights.

The [[First Amendment]] receives the most attention. It prohibits [[Congress] from infringing on free speech, press, assembly, petition and religion; it also prohibits the establishment of religion. By implication, it protects freedom of association. It expressly applies only to [[Congress]], but the courts have since applied it against all the states too.

In fact, virtually all of the [[Bill of Rights]] now protect citizens against all forms of government: federal, state or local.

Let’s look at important sections of the [[Bill of Rights]]:

===The Free Speech Clause.===

The [[First Amendment]] protects the greatest of all constitutional rights: “[[Congress]] shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech.” This protects religious and political speech. It protects prayer in many circumstances; it also protects evangelizing. It was unique to [[America]], reflecting the [[Great Awakening]] and preaching that permeated the colonies in the 1700s.

Originally, “speech” would not have included as much as it does today. Over the years, the [[Supreme Court]] has expanded what is protected as speech under the [[First Amendment]].

Now speech includes, for example, the burning of the American flag. It includes spending money on political campaigns. It can include vulgar or obscene words. It offers some protection even to commercial speech, such as certain advertisements.

When something qualifies as “free speech,” the protection against regulation of its content is nearly absolute. Only a compelling interest by the government can justify infringing on such speech, and the regulation must be narrowly tailored for a necessary goal.

One might ask, why isn’t all speech protected? Why should the government be able to abridge any speech?

It is easy to think of examples of speech that should not be free and protected.

Consider terrorism. Suppose an anonymous caller phones a hospital and says that there is a bomb there. The hospital may have to evacuate as a precaution. Operations would be immediately stopped, and the very sick would be moved with great difficulty. Or imagine someone on an airplane standing up in mid-flight and announcing he’s a terrorist. Passengers would panic and the airplane would be forced to land immediately. There can be no constitutional protection for this type of speech.

Before airplanes and terrorism, the classic example of unprotected speech is yelling “fire” in a crowded theater. People would stampede for the exits, and some could be injured.

The [[Supreme Court]] has said that “fighting words” are not “free speech” protected by the [[First Amendment]]. Other types of speech are also excluded from the [[First Amendment]]. But over time, the [[Court]] has redefined protected speech to be broader and broader, including even conduct like flag-burning and political campaign spending.

===B. The Establishment Clause.===

The [[First Amendment]] begins with: “[[Congress]] shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ....” Known as the “Establishment Clause,” this is increasingly used against state and local government. In 1962, this clause was the basis for the [[Supreme Court]] to ban prayer in the schools (Engel v. Vitale). It is the basis for the recent ban on the phrase “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, and the order to remove the [[Ten Commandments]] plaque from the Alabama Supreme Court.

The Establishment Clause is rooted in [[Thomas Jefferson]]’s [[Virginia]] Statute for Religious Freedom of 1786. Its purpose was to prevent an elite class of clergy, funded by government. “The law for religious freedom, which made a part of this system, having put down the aristocracy of the clergy, ... restored to the citizen the freedom of the mind, and those of entails and descents nurturing an equality of condition among them.” Letter by Jefferson to Adams, Monticello (Oct. 28, 1813).
Neither Jefferson nor [[James Madison]] wanted an aristocratic clergy like in [[England]]. They opposed [[American]] imitation of the [[Church of England]].

Jefferson and [[Madison]] were hostile to nobility and primogeniture (the English rule that gave all inheritance to the oldest son). The [[Constitution]] bans titles of nobility, as does the Articles of Confederation. Jefferson worked to abolish English rules of inheritance from [[Virginia]] law.

Note that the Establishment Clause applied only to [[Congress]]. Read it again. “[[Congress]] shall make no law ....”

After the [[Civil War]], some in [[Congress]] sought to extend the Establishment Clause against the states. That would have been pointless if it already applied against the states. The proposals substituted “state” for “[[Congress]]” in copying from the [[First Amendment]]: “No state shall make any law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ....” H.R. Res. I, 44th Cong., 1st Sess. (1875) (emphasis added). But the proposed amendment never passed.

Eventually, someone hostile to religion in public life rose to power on the [[Supreme Court]]. Justice [[Hugo Black]], a former member of the [[Ku Klux Klan]], pushed the court to ostracize religion from schools and government. He wrote the opinion banning prayer from public schools, and other opinions ostracizing religion. Since then courts have banned the [[Ten Commandments]] and now even the [[Pledge of Allegiance]].

===C. Protections for the Accused.===

In colonial [[America]], those who favored independence were considered enemies of the King. Some were prosecuted. Peter Zenger, for example, was prosecuted for published materials critical of the governor of [[New York]], who was appointed by the Crown. Zenger was acquitted by an American jury in a famous case establishing the freedom of the press. But the jury had clearly saved him - had a judge tried the case, he would have surely been sent to jail.

The original [[Constitution]] included few protections for individual liberties, but it did guarantee the right to a jury trial. Art. III, Section 2. The Founders were sure to include that. To this day, 95% of jury trials held in the entire world are in the [[United States]].

This protection was not enough for colonists still mindful of the [[British]] prosecutions. The bulk of the [[Bill of Rights]] added many additional safeguards against abusive prosecutions by government.

The [[Fourth Amendment]] protects citizens against unreasonable searches of their homes and personal belongings. Warrants signed by a neutral judge or magistrate are required. The [[Supreme Court]] imposed the “Exclusionary Rule” to prohibit use of unlawfully obtained material at the trial of the accused.

The [[Fifth Amendment]] allows an accused to avoid testifying in his own case, and gives him the right to counsel. The [[Supreme Court]] later required government to read Miranda warnings to any accused held in custody before interrogating him.

The [[Sixth Amendment]] established the right to counsel, and the [[Supreme Court]] later forced states to pay for an attorney when the defendant cannot afford it. It also establishes the right to an “impartial” jury in the district where the crime allegedly occurred, and a right to a speedy and public trial. This expands on the right to jury trial in the original [[Constitution]].

The [[Seventh Amendment]] establishes a right to jury trial in civil (non-criminal) cases involving more than $20 (which isn’t much today, due to inflation!).

The [[Eighth Amendment]] prohibits excessive bail requirements, which is what an accused must post to be released from jail before trial. It also prohibits excessive fines or cruel and unusual punishment.

The Seventh of the [[Ten Commandments]] says “Neither shall you bear false witness against your neighbor.” Deuteronomy 5:20. That prohibits false accusations, and false testimony in court. If everyone obeyed this commandment, then many of the above protections would not be needed.

In fact, false accusations were a problem in colonial [[America]] as they are today. Colonists feared the power of the new government being used to intimidate witnesses into testifying falsely, and imprisoning critics of government. During the President of [[John Adams]], a few of his opponents were fined and even imprisoned under the [[Sedition Act]] for criticizing the president.

The [[Sixth Amendment]] contains perhaps the greatest safeguard of all against false accusation: the right “to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” This includes the right of cross-examination, by which an accused person's attorney can question the government witnesses in open court. Statements made outside of court can be excluded in criminal trials if the defendant lacks an opportunity to cross-examine the person who made the statement. “I heard someone say he saw defendant rob the bank” isn’t going to be allowed, unless that someone is cross-examined in open court.

Many feel that these amendments have been expanded too far to protect dangerous criminals. This became a national controversy in the 1960s, as the [[Supreme Court]] interpreted these amendments broadly in favor of criminal defendants.

Others, while no friends of real criminals, feel we need the protections to limit a government greedy for power. [[Christianity]] is based on the unlawful execution of an innocent man, [[Jesus]]. He had no right to an attorney in Roman court. The [[Greeks]], not the Romans, allowed advocates or attorneys in trials.

Many would rather see fifty guilty persons go free than to wrongly convict an innocent man. What do you think?

==[[Federalism]] & the [[Constitution]]==

The [[Supremacy Clause]] may be the most important provision in the entire Constitution. It is on page 328:

:This [[Constitution]], and the Laws of the [[United States]] which shall be made in Pursuance thereof ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land ... any Thing in the [[Constitution]] or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

U.S. Const. Art. VI.

What does it mean? It means that [[Congress]] overrides every state law and state constitution. The federal government reigns supreme. What it says, goes.

In our history, states have sometimes defied congressional law. [[James Madison]] and [[Thomas Jefferson]] themselves started the nullification doctrine, declaring that a state could nullify as unconstitutional an act of [[Congress]] (in their case, the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798). After all, what is a state to do if [[Congress]] and the [[Supreme Court]] team up against it? In 1809, the [[Pennsylvania]] legislature ordered the state militia to prevent a federal marshal from serving a writ (order) that it felt was unconstitutional. The federal officers simply arrested the state militia, but [[James Madison]] pardoned them.

Later, nullification doctrine led to the [[Civil War]] because it justified secession. As recently as 1956, southern states invoked the doctrine to reject the [[Supreme Court]] ruling of Brown v. Board of Education (1954), which desegregated schools. The federal government enforced that ruling over objections by southern states.

Some states, like [[West Virginia]], defer to federal law in their own state constitutions. Article 1, Section 1 of the West Virginia Constitution provides:

:The State of [[West Virginia]] is, and shall remain, one of the [[United States]] of [[America]]. The [[Constitution]] of the [[United States]] of [[America]], and the laws and treaties made in pursuance thereof shall be the supreme law of the land.

Perhaps you can think of why [[West Virginia]] expressly accepts federal supremacy. (Answer: [[West Virginia]] was formed by splitting off from [[Virginia]] in order to join the Union during the [[Civil War]]. [[Virginia]] remained with the southern Confederacy.)

Large states, like [[New York]], [[Virginia]] and [[Massachusetts]], were very reluctant to give away their power to the federal government by ratifying the [[Constitution]]. [[James Madison]] assured them that the “powers delegated by the proposed [[Constitution]] to the federal government are few and defined. Those that are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.” (Federalist No. 45)

Madison’s assurance seemed true at the beginning, but over time the federal government seized more and more power for itself, as opponents of the Constitution had feared.

==Key Decisions concerning Federalism==

The [[Supreme Court]] is part of the federal government, and until recently it has consistently expanded federal power. This is self-serving and predictable. Many, unfortunately, like to seize more power for themselves. Also, many judges tend to enjoy exercising authority over others.

In ''Marbury v. Madison'' (1801), the [[Supreme Court]] grabbed the power to invalidate laws of [[Congress]] as unconstitutional. This is known as the principal of “judicial review.” It affects the relative power of the Supreme Court with respect to Congress. It does not affect federalism, because the states were not involved.

In ''McCulloch v. Maryland'' (1819), the [[Supreme Court]] decided a contest between the federal government and the state of [[Maryland]]. Guess which side the [[Supreme Court]] chose? The federal government, of course, because that is what the [[Supreme Court]] itself is. It held that the Necessary and Proper Clause of the [[Constitution]] gives [[Congress]] broad powers. The states cannot interfere with a law passed by [[Congress]]. (In this case, [[Maryland]] tried to tax the national bank operating within its state. The Court voided the tax.)

The expansion of federal power continued in the courts for another 150 years. Not until Justice William Rehnquist arrived to the [[Supreme Court]] (see handout) did the tone start to change. Here are some more examples:

In ''Gibbons v. Ogden'' (1824), the [[Supreme Court]] interpreted the Commerce Clause to include virtually any business activity between two or more states. This greatly reduced the power of states to regulate commerce.

Now, much legislation by [[Congress]] is justified based on the [[Commerce Clause]]. For example, civil rights legislation banning discrimination in places of public accommodation (e.g., hotels, restaurants, trains, airplanes) is based in the Commerce Clause. This was upheld by Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (1964). Since almost anything affects commerce, it is difficult to find many limits on federal power anymore.

One limit that does still exist is in family law. It remains outside the reach of the federal government. Education has also been beyond federal power, but President Bush’s No Child Left Behind has greatly expanded federal influence in this area. Most types of crimes, including most murders, are still beyond federal power. States alone can prosecute them, unless state lines were crossed during the commission of the crime.

===Types of Federalism===

Let’s review various forms of national government:

unitary system: national government has all the power. Examples: [[England]], [[France]] and [[Italy]].

co-federal system: states have all the power. Examples: colonies under Articles of Confederation.

In between these systems is the federalism unique to our [[Constitution]]. For legal, political and economic reasons, the system has changed over the years:

dual federalism (1788-1932): limited federal government no stronger than the states. Each has its own separate authority. Not much cooperation between the two. Examples: federal government runs the mails, state government runs the police.

cooperative federalism (1932-1965): responsibilities of federal and state government are mixed. Exclusive state power erodes.

centralized federalism (1965-1972): federal government asserts its power in cities, health care, schools, etc., with large spending programs under President Johnson’s Great Society. Also known as “creative federalism.”

new federalism (1972-today): conservative movement to return power and money back to the states, away from the federal government.

Which do liberals prefer? A strong federal government. Which do conservatives prefer? A weak federal government.

Here is a more difficult question: which do big companies prefer? Think about it. (Answer: Big companies want to avoid 50 different state regulations. They tend to prefer a strong federal government. Hence big business creates another source of pressure for weakening state power further.)

===Issues===

#Are laws against certain advertisements unconstitutional?
#*The federal government reserves the right to prohibit certain types of advertising, such as ads for harmful products like alcohol or cigarettes. Tobacco companies voluntarily stopped television ads rather than wait until the federal government banned them. The First Amendment says “[[Congress]] shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech.” Should the federal government have the power to ban certain types of ads?
#free 50 guilty defendants rather than convict one innocent defendant?
#*The Bill of Rights contains many protections for criminal defendants. Clearly, these rules will allow some guilty defendants to go free in order to minimize convictions of innocent persons. Do you agree with this approach?
#Is there a constitutional right for defendants to question potential jurors before trial?
#*The selection of the jury is often the most important aspect of a criminal trial. The Sixth Amendment guarantees an “impartial jury,” so questions are asked of potential jurors to identify bias for one side or the other. A jury that favors government is what the prosecutor wants; a jury skeptical of government is what the defendant seeks. How much freedom should the defendant have in asking questions of potential jurors before they are chosen for the trial? This process is known as “voir dire.” In state court, defendants have much more leeway than in federal court, and the conviction rate is higher in federal court partly for this reason. Should defendants have a right for their attorneys to question potential jurors during jury selection?
#Does the Fourth Amendment prohibit drug testing of all public school students?

American Government Lecture Two 2007

2007-09-19T15:53:53Z

JessicaS:

'''American Government'''

'''Second Lecture - [[BILL OF RIGHTS]] & [[FEDERALISM]]'''

'''Instructor: Andy Schlafly'''

==Introduction==

The Amendments to the [[Constitution]] dominate current legal and political controversies. The [[Bill of Rights]] – Amendments one through ten – and the Fourteenth Amendment have wrought enormous changes. We explain the [[Bill of Rights]] now, and reach the Fourteenth Amendment in a future class.

==[[Bill of Rights]]==

Opposition was so strong to the [[Constitution]] that its supporters had to promise a “[[Bill of Rights]].” But ratification only required nine out of thirteen states (Article VII), and that was attained when a convention in [[New Hampshire]] approved it (57-47) on June 21, 1788. But the large states of [[Virginia]] and [[New York]] had not yet joined the [[Union]], and the [[Anti-Federalists]] were strong in both states. These were the home states of [[Madison]] and [[Hamilton]], respectively, the biggest supporters of the [[Constitution]].

[[Virginia]] only ratified the [[Constitution]] by adding a [[Bill of Rights]] for 20 changes, and demanding 20 other changes too. In [[New York]], defeat seemed likely until [[Hamilton]] cleverly procured a delay to await news from [[New Hampshire]] and [[Virginia]]. When news of their ratification reached [[New York]], sentiment moved in favor of the [[Constitution]] and it narrowly passed on July 26, 1788. The vote was a very close 30-27. Still, [[New York]] demanded another constitutional convention to add a [[Bill of Rights]].

To avoid another constitutional convention, the first [[Congress]] passed 12 constitutional amendments and sent them to the states for ratification. The states ratified ten of them by the end of 1791, and they became known as the “[[Bill of Rights]]” because they protect the people against certain [[government]] interference.

The [[Bill of Rights]] is very short: you could completely memorize them in a few days. They are set forth on pages 330-31 of the textbook. What they mean, however, could fill an entire library.

The first two amendments establish fundamental freedoms, including the right to keep and bear arms. The third amendment prohibits placing troops in people’s homes in time of peace. The fourth through eighth amendments establish legal rights, particularly for the accused. The ninth amendment is a vague protection of individual rights, and the tenth amendment protects state rights.

The [[First Amendment]] receives the most attention. It prohibits [[Congress] from infringing on free speech, press, assembly, petition and religion; it also prohibits the establishment of religion. By implication, it protects freedom of association. It expressly applies only to [[Congress]], but the courts have since applied it against all the states too.

In fact, virtually all of the [[Bill of Rights]] now protect citizens against all forms of government: federal, state or local.

Let’s look at important sections of the [[Bill of Rights]]:

===The Free Speech Clause.===

The [[First Amendment]] protects the greatest of all constitutional rights: “[[Congress]] shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech.” This protects religious and political speech. It protects prayer in many circumstances; it also protects evangelizing. It was unique to [[America]], reflecting the [[Great Awakening]] and preaching that permeated the colonies in the 1700s.

Originally, “speech” would not have included as much as it does today. Over the years, the [[Supreme Court]] has expanded what is protected as speech under the [[First Amendment]].

Now speech includes, for example, the burning of the American flag. It includes spending money on political campaigns. It can include vulgar or obscene words. It offers some protection even to commercial speech, such as certain advertisements.

When something qualifies as “free speech,” the protection against regulation of its content is nearly absolute. Only a compelling interest by the government can justify infringing on such speech, and the regulation must be narrowly tailored for a necessary goal.

One might ask, why isn’t all speech protected? Why should the government be able to abridge any speech?

It is easy to think of examples of speech that should not be free and protected.

Consider terrorism. Suppose an anonymous caller phones a hospital and says that there is a bomb there. The hospital may have to evacuate as a precaution. Operations would be immediately stopped, and the very sick would be moved with great difficulty. Or imagine someone on an airplane standing up in mid-flight and announcing he’s a terrorist. Passengers would panic and the airplane would be forced to land immediately. There can be no constitutional protection for this type of speech.

Before airplanes and terrorism, the classic example of unprotected speech is yelling “fire” in a crowded theater. People would stampede for the exits, and some could be injured.

The [[Supreme Court]] has said that “fighting words” are not “free speech” protected by the [[First Amendment]]. Other types of speech are also excluded from the [[First Amendment]]. But over time, the [[Court]] has redefined protected speech to be broader and broader, including even conduct like flag-burning and political campaign spending.

===B. The Establishment Clause.===

The [[First Amendment]] begins with: “[[Congress]] shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ....” Known as the “Establishment Clause,” this is increasingly used against state and local government. In 1962, this clause was the basis for the [[Supreme Court]] to ban prayer in the schools (Engel v. Vitale). It is the basis for the recent ban on the phrase “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, and the order to remove the [[Ten Commandments]] plaque from the Alabama Supreme Court.

The Establishment Clause is rooted in [[Thomas Jefferson]]’s [[Virginia]] Statute for Religious Freedom of 1786. Its purpose was to prevent an elite class of clergy, funded by government. “The law for religious freedom, which made a part of this system, having put down the aristocracy of the clergy, ... restored to the citizen the freedom of the mind, and those of entails and descents nurturing an equality of condition among them.” Letter by Jefferson to Adams, Monticello (Oct. 28, 1813).
Neither Jefferson nor [[James Madison]] wanted an aristocratic clergy like in [[England]]. They opposed [[American]] imitation of the [[Church of England]].

Jefferson and [[Madison]] were hostile to nobility and primogeniture (the English rule that gave all inheritance to the oldest son). The [[Constitution]] bans titles of nobility, as does the Articles of Confederation. Jefferson worked to abolish English rules of inheritance from [[Virginia]] law.

Note that the Establishment Clause applied only to [[Congress]]. Read it again. “[[Congress]] shall make no law ....”

After the [[Civil War]], some in [[Congress]] sought to extend the Establishment Clause against the states. That would have been pointless if it already applied against the states. The proposals substituted “state” for “[[Congress]]” in copying from the [[First Amendment]]: “No state shall make any law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ....” H.R. Res. I, 44th Cong., 1st Sess. (1875) (emphasis added). But the proposed amendment never passed.

Eventually, someone hostile to religion in public life rose to power on the [[Supreme Court]]. Justice [[Hugo Black]], a former member of the [[Ku Klux Klan]], pushed the court to ostracize religion from schools and government. He wrote the opinion banning prayer from public schools, and other opinions ostracizing religion. Since then courts have banned the [[Ten Commandments]] and now even the [[Pledge of Allegiance]].

===C. Protections for the Accused.===

In colonial [[America]], those who favored independence were considered enemies of the King. Some were prosecuted. Peter Zenger, for example, was prosecuted for published materials critical of the governor of [[New York]], who was appointed by the Crown. Zenger was acquitted by an American jury in a famous case establishing the freedom of the press. But the jury had clearly saved him - had a judge tried the case, he would have surely been sent to jail.

The original [[Constitution]] included few protections for individual liberties, but it did guarantee the right to a jury trial. Art. III, Section 2. The Founders were sure to include that. To this day, 95% of jury trials held in the entire world are in the [[United States]].

This protection was not enough for colonists still mindful of the [[British]] prosecutions. The bulk of the [[Bill of Rights]] added many additional safeguards against abusive prosecutions by government.

The [[Fourth Amendment]] protects citizens against unreasonable searches of their homes and personal belongings. Warrants signed by a neutral judge or magistrate are required. The [[Supreme Court]] imposed the “Exclusionary Rule” to prohibit use of unlawfully obtained material at the trial of the accused.

The [[Fifth Amendment]] allows an accused to avoid testifying in his own case, and gives him the right to counsel. The [[Supreme Court]] later required government to read Miranda warnings to any accused held in custody before interrogating him.

The [[Sixth Amendment]] established the right to counsel, and the [[Supreme Court]] later forced states to pay for an attorney when the defendant cannot afford it. It also establishes the right to an “impartial” jury in the district where the crime allegedly occurred, and a right to a speedy and public trial. This expands on the right to jury trial in the original [[Constitution]].

The [[Seventh Amendment]] establishes a right to jury trial in civil (non-criminal) cases involving more than $20 (which isn’t much today, due to inflation!).

The [[Eighth Amendment]] prohibits excessive bail requirements, which is what an accused must post to be released from jail before trial. It also prohibits excessive fines or cruel and unusual punishment.

The Seventh of the [[Ten Commandments]] says “Neither shall you bear false witness against your neighbor.” Deuteronomy 5:20. That prohibits false accusations, and false testimony in court. If everyone obeyed this commandment, then many of the above protections would not be needed.

In fact, false accusations were a problem in colonial [[America]] as they are today. Colonists feared the power of the new government being used to intimidate witnesses into testifying falsely, and imprisoning critics of government. During the President of [[John Adams]], a few of his opponents were fined and even imprisoned under the [[Sedition Act]] for criticizing the president.

The [[Sixth Amendment]] contains perhaps the greatest safeguard of all against false accusation: the right “to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” This includes the right of cross-examination, by which an accused person's attorney can question the government witnesses in open court. Statements made outside of court can be excluded in criminal trials if the defendant lacks an opportunity to cross-examine the person who made the statement. “I heard someone say he saw defendant rob the bank” isn’t going to be allowed, unless that someone is cross-examined in open court.

Many feel that these amendments have been expanded too far to protect dangerous criminals. This became a national controversy in the 1960s, as the [[Supreme Court]] interpreted these amendments broadly in favor of criminal defendants.

Others, while no friends of real criminals, feel we need the protections to limit a government greedy for power. [[Christianity]] is based on the unlawful execution of an innocent man, [[Jesus]]. He had no right to an attorney in Roman court. The [[Greeks]], not the Romans, allowed advocates or attorneys in trials.

Many would rather see fifty guilty persons go free than to wrongly convict an innocent man. What do you think?

==[[Federalism]] & the [[Constitution]]==

The [[Supremacy Clause]] may be the most important provision in the entire Constitution. It is on page 328:

:This [[Constitution]], and the Laws of the [[United States]] which shall be made in Pursuance thereof ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land ... any Thing in the [[Constitution]] or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

U.S. Const. Art. VI.

What does it mean? It means that [[Congress]] overrides every state law and state constitution. The federal government reigns supreme. What it says, goes.

In our history, states have sometimes defied congressional law. [[James Madison]] and [[Thomas Jefferson]] themselves started the nullification doctrine, declaring that a state could nullify as unconstitutional an act of [[Congress]] (in their case, the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798). After all, what is a state to do if [[Congress]] and the [[Supreme Court]] team up against it? In 1809, the [[Pennsylvania]] legislature ordered the state militia to prevent a federal marshal from serving a writ (order) that it felt was unconstitutional. The federal officers simply arrested the state militia, but [[James Madison]] pardoned them.

Later, nullification doctrine led to the [[Civil War]] because it justified secession. As recently as 1956, southern states invoked the doctrine to reject the [[Supreme Court]] ruling of Brown v. Board of Education (1954), which desegregated schools. The federal government enforced that ruling over objections by southern states.

Some states, like [[West Virginia]], defer to federal law in their own state constitutions. Article 1, Section 1 of the West Virginia Constitution provides:

:The State of [[West Virginia]] is, and shall remain, one of the [[United States]] of [[America]]. The [[Constitution]] of the [[United States]] of [[America]], and the laws and treaties made in pursuance thereof shall be the supreme law of the land.

Perhaps you can think of why [[West Virginia]] expressly accepts federal supremacy. (Answer: [[West Virginia]] was formed by splitting off from [[Virginia]] in order to join the Union during the [[Civil War]]. [[Virginia]] remained with the southern Confederacy.)

Large states, like [[New York]], [[Virginia]] and [[Massachusetts]], were very reluctant to give away their power to the federal government by ratifying the [[Constitution]]. [[James Madison]] assured them that the “powers delegated by the proposed [[Constitution]] to the federal government are few and defined. Those that are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.” (Federalist No. 45)

Madison’s assurance seemed true at the beginning, but over time the federal government seized more and more power for itself, as opponents of the Constitution had feared.

==Key Decisions concerning Federalism==

The [[Supreme Court]] is part of the federal government, and until recently it has consistently expanded federal power. This is self-serving and predictable. Many, unfortunately, like to seize more power for themselves. Also, many judges tend to enjoy exercising authority over others.

In ''Marbury v. Madison'' (1801), the [[Supreme Court]] grabbed the power to invalidate laws of [[Congress]] as unconstitutional. This is known as the principal of “judicial review.” It affects the relative power of the Supreme Court with respect to Congress. It does not affect federalism, because the states were not involved.

In ''McCulloch v. Maryland'' (1819), the [[Supreme Court]] decided a contest between the federal government and the state of [[Maryland]]. Guess which side the [[Supreme Court]] chose? The federal government, of course, because that is what the [[Supreme Court]] itself is. It held that the Necessary and Proper Clause of the [[Constitution]] gives [[Congress]] broad powers. The states cannot interfere with a law passed by [[Congress]]. (In this case, [[Maryland]] tried to tax the national bank operating within its state. The Court voided the tax.)

The expansion of federal power continued in the courts for another 150 years. Not until Justice William Rehnquist arrived to the [[Supreme Court]] (see handout) did the tone start to change. Here are some more examples:

In ''Gibbons v. Ogden'' (1824), the [[Supreme Court]] interpreted the Commerce Clause to include virtually any business activity between two or more states. This greatly reduced the power of states to regulate commerce.

Now, much legislation by [[Congress]] is justified based on the [[Commerce Clause]]. For example, civil rights legislation banning discrimination in places of public accommodation (e.g., hotels, restaurants, trains, airplanes) is based in the Commerce Clause. This was upheld by Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (1964). Since almost anything affects commerce, it is difficult to find many limits on federal power anymore.

One limit that does still exist is in family law. It remains outside the reach of the federal government. Education has also been beyond federal power, but President Bush’s No Child Left Behind has greatly expanded federal influence in this area. Most types of crimes, including most murders, are still beyond federal power. States alone can prosecute them, unless state lines were crossed during the commission of the crime.

===Types of Federalism===

Let’s review various forms of national government:

unitary system: national government has all the power. Examples: [[England]], [[France]] and [[Italy]].

co-federal system: states have all the power. Examples: colonies under Articles of Confederation.

In between these systems is the federalism unique to our [[Constitution]]. For legal, political and economic reasons, the system has changed over the years:

dual federalism (1788-1932): limited federal government no stronger than the states. Each has its own separate authority. Not much cooperation between the two. Examples: federal government runs the mails, state government runs the police.

cooperative federalism (1932-1965): responsibilities of federal and state government are mixed. Exclusive state power erodes.

centralized federalism (1965-1972): federal government asserts its power in cities, health care, schools, etc., with large spending programs under President Johnson’s Great Society. Also known as “creative federalism.”

new federalism (1972-today): conservative movement to return power and money back to the states, away from the federal government.

Which do liberals prefer? A strong federal government. Which do conservatives prefer? A weak federal government.

Here is a more difficult question: which do big companies prefer? Think about it. (Answer: Big companies want to avoid 50 different state regulations. They tend to prefer a strong federal government. Hence big business creates another source of pressure for weakening state power further.)

===Issues===

#Are laws against certain advertisements unconstitutional?
#*The federal government reserves the right to prohibit certain types of advertising, such as ads for harmful products like alcohol or cigarettes. Tobacco companies voluntarily stopped television ads rather than wait until the federal government banned them. The First Amendment says “[[Congress]] shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech.” Should the federal government have the power to ban certain types of ads?
#free 50 guilty defendants rather than convict one innocent defendant?
#*The Bill of Rights contains many protections for criminal defendants. Clearly, these rules will allow some guilty defendants to go free in order to minimize convictions of innocent persons. Do you agree with this approach?
#Is there a constitutional right for defendants to question potential jurors before trial?
#*The selection of the jury is often the most important aspect of a criminal trial. The Sixth Amendment guarantees an “impartial jury,” so questions are asked of potential jurors to identify bias for one side or the other. A jury that favors government is what the prosecutor wants; a jury skeptical of government is what the defendant seeks. How much freedom should the defendant have in asking questions of potential jurors before they are chosen for the trial? This process is known as “voir dire.” In state court, defendants have much more leeway than in federal court, and the conviction rate is higher in federal court partly for this reason. Should defendants have a right for their attorneys to question potential jurors during jury selection?
#Does the Fourth Amendment prohibit drug testing of all public school students?

User talk:DeborahB.

2007-05-03T15:40:29Z

JessicaS:

Where the heck did you plagerize (steal) that article on the ''Da Vinci Code'' from?

[[User:ChrisS|Chris Svendsen]]

'''REPLY:'''

'''Chris, I'm sorry to dissapoint you, but I didn't plagerize that :) (oh yea BTW...I do know what plagerize means, you didn't have to put the (steal) in. Gosh, I didn't know you thought I was that stupid :) It said Deborah because I was looking at Sarah's amazing paper and I saw she forgot to put in a few spaces under the pictures. (yes her paper really is amazing, I wasn't being sarcastic. Isn't she sick!?!?!)'''

'''From your dumb blonde cousin :)'''

[[User:DeborahB.|~Deborah~]]

'''Do you do anything on this site other than post things on everyone's (other than mine) talk page?

Your loving cousin,

[[User:JessicaS|Jessica]]

'''REPLY:'''

'''Jessie, sorry I forgot about you :) But never again!'''

'''So...what picture do you think I should put up on my User Talk Page? I have no idea what to put...I don't what to do something stupid. I mean, Philip has a plane, and Sarah has the picture of the women Leonardo da Vinci drew, the one that's in Ever After, and Ben has the picture's he made. But, sadly, I don't have the talent of any of them :) Have any idea's for me?'''

[[User:DeborahB.|~Deborah~]]

'''PS.'''

'''Never mind Jessie!!! Check out [[User:DeborahB.|my User page]]!!'''

'''~Deborah~'''

It's awesome!

--[[User:JessicaS|Jess]] 16:58, 7 December 2006 (EST)

'''REPLY:'''

'''Thanks :)'''

[[User:DeborahB.|~Deborah~]]

Mostly Philip & Sarah

[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]]

'''REPLY:'''

'''Ben,'''

'''Yea...I saw what they did :) But look at how many people [[User:DeborahB.|look at ''my'' sight]]!'''

''':)'''

[[User:DeborahB.|~Deborah~]]

Sorry about the phone :)

Tell mariah to give Caramel a kiss for me.
--[[User:JessicaS|Jess]] 13:08, 8 December 2006 (EST)

P.S. Jon says "HI!!"

'''REPLY:'''

'''Jessica,'''

'''It's ok...I had to do school too but I didn't want to go either :) And'''
'''I told Mariah that and she smiled. And I'm sure she went right outside and'''
'''did it!'''

[[User:DeborahB.|~Deborah~]]

Thanks.I'm glad you like the picture. (Danielle put it there)

And thanks for carrying my mesage to mariah :)
We got a new keyboard. It's a normal one and it's so annoying!!

--[[User:JessicaS|Jess]] 20:39, 8 December 2006 (EST)

'''REPLY:'''

'''Jessie,''''

'''Hehe :) Now you'll have to get used to that one! I hated the other!'''
'''And those puppies are adorable...who wouldn't think they were cute?'''

[[User:DeborahB.|~Deborah~]]

Are you sure that that verse from 1st Corinthians is really saying that Peter was married? you should quote the one about his mother in law in stead

[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]]

'''REPLY:'''

'''Ben,'''

'''Thanks for the comment...it's the first usefull one i've got :)'''

'''I put that verse to show that his wife probably went with him on'''
'''his travels... (did I put the right one?) I was going to put the one'''
'''about his mother-in-law too, but I forgot. (You mean the one where Jesus'''
'''heals his mother-in-law, right?)'''

'''Thanks,'''

[[User:DeborahB.|~Deborah~]]

I know what you mean... Jessie goes around and comments the most ''Useless'' stuff on my page

[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]]

'''REPLY:'''

'''Lol :)'''

[[User:DeborahB.|~Deborah~]]

Deb,

No offence, but if I were you I would make the Philip and Andrew pages a little more detailed.

--[[User:JessicaS|Jess]] 16:47, 10 December 2006 (EST)

'''REPLY:'''

'''Don't worry...I'm not offended...I think constructive critisism is a very good thing :)'''

'''And I agree with you, as soon as I'm done with the Peter page, I'm going'''
'''to write the Philip and Andrew one's. I just created them really quickly'''
'''so if you clicked on them from the Peter page it didn't say "this page'''
'''does not exist." Don't worry, I didn't sit down and think for an hour on'''
'''each of them and then only right one sentence :) I just haven't got to'''
'''them yet.'''

[[User:DeborahB.|~Deborah~]]

'''ps. Feel free to write them yourself! That's the whole idea of Conservapedia...everyone can work on everyone else's pages.'''

Maybe I will.
since your on now... Hello!!!

[[User:JessicaS|Jess]]

No I am not allowed on the phone now.
Mom and dad are @ prayer.( they do not like me to be on the phone alot when they are out. Sorry :) --[[User:JessicaS|Jess]] 20:51, 10 December 2006 (EST)
p.s. I am going to do one of the diciples

'''REPLY:'''

'''Great!'''

[[User:DeborahB.|~Deborah~]]

Thats cool

[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]]

'''REPLY:'''

'''I'm very proud of that list of resources...it took me a while :) Of course'''
'''Philip was walking me through it, but...we won't go there :)'''

[[User:DeborahB.|~Deborah~]]

Deb, I went to give you a message and then I decided not to and saved the page.
So niether of us made a mistake :)

'''REPLY:'''

Jessica,

Ohhhh I see :)

[[User:DeborahB.|DeborahB.]]

Good!!--[[User:JessicaS|Jess]] 17:31, 20 December 2006 (EST)

Deborah,

Great postings!!!!

--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:30, 20 December 2006 (EST)

Dear Deb
Merry Christmas!!--[[User:JessicaS|Jess]] 09:59, 24 December 2006 (EST)

'''REPLY:'''

MERRY '''''CHRIST'''''MAS!!!!! :)

Deborah,

You saved the day!!! We're at 1998 with only two to go at 11:42pm. 18 minutes left in 2006 to add at least 2 more entries!

--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:43, 31 December 2006 (EST)

Deborah,

Congratulations, you had the 2000th entry: William Henry Harrison! This met our goal for 2006!!!! HOORAY AND HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!

--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:14, 1 January 2007 (EST)

Deborah,

Fantastic postings!!!! Very well done!!!
--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:54, 2 January 2007 (EST)

Deborah,

Your postings today have been phenomenal!!!
--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:57, 2 January 2007 (EST)

Hey Deb!!!
Music was great

Good!
i havent talked to you in ages!!
P.S. I was sad because there was no violin :(

Deborah,

Tremendous postings today!!!!!! Very well done!!!!

--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:41, 3 January 2007 (EST)

Deborah,

Your postings continue to be superb!!! Fantastic!!!!!
--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:26, 5 January 2007 (EST)

Deb,
why don't you ever post on my talk page?
I'l make a deal with you,
if you post on my talk page whenever you are on Conservapedia
I will do the same for you
P.S.
I never got your letter in the mail :(
--[[User:JessicaS|Someone]] 11:36, 6 January 2007 (EST)

Deborah,

More fantastic postings today!!! Excellent!
--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:06, 6 January 2007 (EST)

Hola, El gatto esta ensima de una messa. El gatto esta comiendo de comida. :)
see if you can figure that out. I am so smart I can speak in spanish.:)
--JessicaS 12:19, 10 January 2007 (EST)

Deborah,

There is an entry specially for "New Pages" on the lower left-hand side of the screen, under "Special pages". That lists only the new pages for each day. --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:44, 22 January 2007 (EST)

Deb, I found out today that it is '''not''' diffinite that we are not going to the skating:-)
I hope to see you tommorow!!
--JessicaS 11:40, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Is Rap music torture?

2007-05-02T17:33:34Z

JessicaS:

According to ''ABC News'', suspected terrorists undergoing [[coercive interrogation]] have been " forced to listen to rap artist Eminem's 'Slim Shady' album. The music was so foreign to them it made them frantic" [http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/print?id=1322866] Is this dehumanizing treatment banned by the Geneva Convention, and if not, should it be?

:I suspect the detail about the kind of music was mentioned to make the treatment sound more ludicrous and less cruel. If you can encourage people to joke about whether rap music is torture, you're deflecting attention from the general character of the treatment itself.

:I suspect that the significance of the music's being "foreign" is that the patterns to it are unfamiliar, and it would be preceived as unpredictable noise rather than as music.

:What volume level was it played at? Was the real point to induce sleep deprivation?

:If you played "music" to me at 110 db, continuously, it wouldn't really matter whether it was rap, Balinese Gamelan music, or Khachaturian's ''Sabre Dance,'' it would deprive me of sleep.

:But if you say "they were subjected to intense noise" it sounds like it could be torture, whereas if you say "they were subjected to rap music," it sounds like a joke. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:23, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

::What [[User:Dpbsmith|he]] said. I was too lazy to type it myself. As far as "torture" or banning under the GC (as if ''we'd'' pay attention to such "outdated concepts"), once you reach a certain volume level, which is easy to do in small cinder block rooms, it's not only not "music", it's simply a physical assault - it causes permanent damage, for instance. [[User:Human|Human]] 00:21, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Well at what point it causes permanent brain damage is debatable... [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:37, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Who said anything about ''brain'' damage? The effect of prolonged exposure to high sound pressure levels (for varying times and SPLs) is well documented - ''on the ears''.

:::::Point taken. I amend my statement. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 10:04, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

People can be very creative when it comes to finding new ways to harm others. - Suricou

During the invasion of Panama, when Noriega was hiding in the Vatican embasy the US blasted rap until he came out. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 12:01, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

If it is, why do people listen to it?

Debate:Are cats just useless Dogs

2007-05-02T17:31:39Z

JessicaS: /* Even more useless than dogs */

{{debate-humorous}}

==Even more useless than dogs==

I constantly fight against the temptation to put catnip in the road ; ) --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 09:58, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

cats are very useless! all they do is lay around and eat all day.

==Yes==
People who have cats really want a dog but haven't got the time to keep one. So they settle for a cat which is vastly inferior because you can't take it for walks, it wont bring anything back to you unless it killed it first, and it will never ever treat you with anything less than complete contempt.

:::It is well known, in fact that cats ARE dogs, in spite of what those silly, left-wing inspired dictionaries, naturalists, scientists, and pet owners claim. We at Conservapedia face an uphill battle undoing several centuries of leftwing brainwashing that attempts to sell the notion that these domesticated, four-legged mammal carnivores are different animals entirely, and as soon as I find some scientists and naturalists who agree with me, I'll be sure to post them as cites. Honest. Cross my heart and hope to die. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:14, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:Hey PF Fox, I'm a scientist. I agree. They are genetically more similar than a European Garden Snail is to an African Land Snail, yet we'd still call both of these creatures 'snails'. It's our mamaliocentric view of life that makes us classify very similar animals as being different. (Like chimps and humans perhaps - sorry creationists, just playing devils advocate, this is conservapedia and we are all entitled to our views!) So lets hear it for Cogs, or is that Dats? [[user:eyupdutch|eyupdutch]] 08:42, 13 April 2007 (BST)

==No==
Cats are different altogether from dogs. Some people(myself included) aren't fans of dogs.[[User:Nsmyth]] 09:15, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

People who have dogs are emotionally insecure individuals who need the validation of constant, interminable, unremitting, unconditional affection, affection, affection. That is why Walt Whitman wrote:

:I think I could turn and live with cats, they are so placid and self-contain’d
:I stand and look at them long and long.
:They do not sweat and whine about their condition;
:They do not lie awake in the dark and weep for their sins;
:Not one kneels to another, nor to his kind that lived thousands of years ago;
:Not one is respectable or industrious over the whole earth.

::::(What Whitman actually wrote "I think I can turn and live with ''animals,''" but the passage just applies to perfectly to ''cats'' that I'm sure it was just a mistake on his part and that he meant to write "cats," so I've corrected the text accordingly...) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:05, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Also, dogs slobber.

Well, cats do, too, but at least cats have the courtesy to spread it thinly and discreetly all over their body in a dignified way, where it dries out and becomes invisible except for adding that subtle gloss to their coat.

Unlike our Newfoundland who flings great stringy arcs of slobber all over the house, leaving big dried strings of Newfie spittle on the couch, the television set, and as high as five feet up on our walls. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 09:28, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

This is what Lord Byron said of his dog, which was evidently better than Walt Whitmans cat;

Near this spot

Are deposited the Remains of one

Who possessed Beauty without Vanity,

Strength without Insolence,

Courage without Ferocity,

And all the Virtues of Man without his Vices.

This Praise, which would be unmeaning Flattery

If inscribed over human ashes,

Is but a just tribute to the Memory of

BOATSWAIN, a DOG

Who was born at Newfoundland, May, 1803,

And died at Newstead, Nov 18th, 1808.

You dont get that with a cat do you!?? Well, do you??
[[User:eyupdutch|eyupdutch]] 14:40, 12 April 2007, (BST)

::Yeah, Newfies are great—I trust everybody knows that Nana, the dog that took care of the Darling children in ''Peter Pan,'' was really a Newfie, but Disney turned her into a St. Bernard just for the visual appeal.[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:49, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Cats are different to dogs, I agree. A little. But they're not as good. They don't do as much.
[[User:eyupdutch|eyupdutch]] 14:32, 12 April 2007, (BST)

Hmm...eyupdutch, this is interesting and I am intrigued...so when dogs chase cats are they playing or defending their terretory like any normal dog v. dog situation. And also...why do people do you think that the left-wingers want to brainwash us into thinking that dogs and cats are different...again I don't strongly disagree...I'm just interested.
Kind thanks, bealecr

== It is unclear ==

The Bible mentions dogs far more than cats, but it does not speak well of them. Are dogs holier (and therefore better) by their more frequent inclusion, or does the biblical censure of dogs make cats the superior being by default? --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 09:14, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

The Bible says "a living dog is better than a dead lion," for whatever that's worth. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 09:29, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Hmm. Interesting point raised there. The ancient egyptians used to worship cats didn't they. Surely that's a false idol? Did/does any culture worship dogs? If christian texts favour the dog, maybe this is a question of the relative moral worth of cats and dogs, rather than a mere objective comparisson of the two creatures. Shall we move this to the religious debates I wonder?? [[User:eyupdutch|eyupdutch]] 14:29, 12 April 2007 (BST)

==Maybe?==
I got 4 cats and about to get another 2 but yet my mom says no dog because they are too much trouble. I would have to say that dogs and cats are equailly hard to take care of. It's slightly easier to take care of cats though with the having them poo in a box instead of having to get up at 2 AM to let fido outback to run and pee everywhere.

Cats .. are not 'useless' dogs. Just .. simplier dogs. [[User:AtheistKathryn|AtheistKathryn]] 23:34, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Cats are free to roam about and poo on other peoples gardens though. It upsets your neighbours and forces them to put it back through your mailbox. (Or maybe that's just where I live). Regarding the 'letting the dog out' problem - maybe some sort of dogflap is required??

==Feline Intelligence==

Cats are subtle, devious and very very egocentric. Cats treat humans as if they were other cats, whereas dogs attempt to become human. Cats will come to you to be stroked, but if you don't do it right, or they tire of you, you may find that you are suddenly grabbed by claws or teeth. It's what a cat would do to another cat (on friendly terms) to say 'ok, thats enough'. I have known cats to walk into a room, lie on a chair, and when asked to move ''pretend'' to be asleep, then behave as if they have been there for hours. Soem cats will even argue with you visibly and vocally. If you understand cat intelligence, you are in a world of subtlety, arrogance and individual need. It's like having the most determined and self-assured three year old imaginable.
--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 18:21, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Is democracy even possible in Iraq?

2007-01-18T02:12:14Z

JessicaS: /* yes */

== yes ==

----

Yes!!!

== No ==

----

Debate:Is democracy even possible in Iraq?

2007-01-18T02:11:40Z

JessicaS:

== yes ==

----

== No ==

----

Aesop's Fables

2007-01-18T01:57:35Z

JessicaS:

A collection of stories with morals written by [[Aesop]]

Ancient Terms A

2007-01-18T01:56:39Z

JessicaS:

[[Ancient Terms A|A]]-[[Ancient Terms B|B]]-[[Ancient Terms C|C]]-[[Ancient Terms D|D]]-[[Ancient Terms E|E]]-[[Ancient Terms F|F]]-[[Ancient Terms G|G]]-[[Ancient Terms H|H]]-[[Ancient Terms I|I]]-[[Ancient Terms J|J]]-[[Ancient Terms K|K]]-[[Ancient Terms L|L]]-[[Ancient Terms M|M]]-[[Ancient Terms N|N]]-[[Ancient Terms O|O]]-[[Ancient Terms P|P]]-[[Ancient Terms Q|Q]]-[[Ancient Terms R|R]]-[[Ancient Terms S|S]]-[[Ancient Terms T|T]]-[[Ancient Terms U|U]]-[[Ancient Terms V|V]]-[[Ancient Terms W|W]]-[[Ancient Terms X|X]]-[[Ancient Terms Y|Y]]-[[Ancient Terms Z|Z]] [[Abraham]] [[Actium (Battle of)]] [[Acropolis]] [[Adrianople (Battle of)]] [[Aesop]] [[Aesop's Fables]] [[Agade]] [[Age of Metal]] [[Age of Pericles]] [[King Agumkakrine|Agumkakrine]] [[Queen Ahhotep]] [[Akhenaton]] [[Akkad]] [[Akkadian Empire]] [[Akkadian Language]] [[Alcibiades]] [[Alexander the Great]] [[Alluvial]] [[Ancient History]] [[Ancient World]] [[Antonius Pius]] [[Angles]] [[Antisthenes]] [[Archimedes]] [[Archons]] [[Arianism]] [[Aristarchus]] [[aristocracy]] [[Aristotle]] [[Ark of the Covenant]] [[Aryans]] [[Ashoka]] [[Assyrian Empire]] [[Athens]] [[Aton]] [[Attila]] [[Augustus Caesar]] [[Avesta]]

'''[[Ancient History Terms]]''' [[Middle Ages Terms]] [[Renaissance Terms]] [[Reformation Terms]] [[Age of Exploration Terms]] [[Pre Modern Terms]]

Augustus Caesar

2007-01-18T01:48:09Z

JessicaS:

Augustus (meaning the exalted was the name given to Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus.
Augustus Caesar was the first Emperor of Rome. He reigned from 27 BC to AD 14, and restored order after centuries of civil war. Augustus Caesar was succeeded by his adopted son, [[Tiberius]]. His successors were known as the [[Julio-Claudian emperors]].

The month of August is named after him. The alternation of 30 and 31-day months was broken so that Augustus Caesar's month would have the same number of days as Julius Caesar's month.

The rule of Augustus is sometimes considered the high point of the classical Roman era. Many of the monumental buildings of central Rome were built during the Augustan era. According to [[Suetonius]],
:The city [of Rome], which was not built in a manner suitable to the grandeur of the empire, and was liable to inundations of the Tiber, as well as to fires, was so much improved under his administration, that he boasted, not without reason, that he "found it of brick, but left it of marble."[http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/6/4/0/6400/6400.txt]

Abraham

2007-01-18T01:43:39Z

JessicaS:

[[Image:abraham_sacrificing_isaac.jpg|thumb|600px|''Abraham Sacrificing Isaac'' by Rembrandt]]

Lived in Ur approx 1800 BC. Father of [[Judaism]]. Example of faith to all Christians, migrated to Palestine in obedience to God's command.

[[Ancient History Terms]] [[Middle Ages Terms]] [[Renaissance Terms]] [[Reformation Terms]]

User talk:DeborahB.

2007-01-10T17:19:11Z

JessicaS:

Conservapedia:Logo

2007-01-07T16:41:17Z

JessicaS:

== Conservapedia Logo ==

*Also, I meant to ask you about the logo yesterday and completely forgot. I have fooled around making a couple logos but am not very happy with the results. I am assuming the colors should be blue, white and other neutral colors or maybe red (to match the featured aritcle and news headers). Let me know if you have a particular color scheme in mind. I'm also trying to decide what the logo should be based up, a cross or the letter C for example. So if you have any imput or ideas on this topic let me know. Sorry about this being so long!--[[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 14:01, 5 January 2007 (EST)
**'''Reply:''' I don't have any particular color scheme in mind. However, the colors of the logo need to blend well with the rest of the site. Post anything you have on here and we can improve them. Also, I came up with the logo below but Mr. Schlafly and I both agree that it is a little too republican. Even so, the colors and the "dullness" of this image are sortof what we are looking for.

:: [[Image:Logo_Concept.png]]

:: If anyone else has a good idea for a logo feel free to post it here. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 14:24, 5 January 2007 (EST)

*Here is my favorite one:

:[[Image:LOGO3.jpg|200px]]

:There is something weird about it, but I can't quite tell what it is. Also, it doesn't say Conservapedia on it, but I can change that if you want me to. Please critique it, and I will improve it with your suggestions.

:Thank you!

:--[[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 16:01, 5 January 2007 (EST)

:PS: It doesn't really have that white background. It is supposed to be just the circle. [[User:SharonS|Sharon]]

* Here is my logo suggestion. I borrowed the C from sharon.
:[[Image:Conservalogo.JPG]]

:[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]]

**Good work Ben! I have two comments about your logo: This may just be me, but the ovals sort of look like orbits of electrons around the nucleus in the bohr model of the atom, implying that Conservapedia is a scientific encyclopedia, while we really have content on all topics. The image looks a little "digital", meaning you can see the pixels creating that jagged look around the edges of the letters and lines. You might be able to fix this by adjusting your program to make higher quality images with more pixels.--[[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 17:56, 5 January 2007 (EST)
**Ben, it looks like Saturn. -Sarah
**Thank you sharon, I agree on the first point; my original intention was to place the "Conservapedia" on top of one of those oval maps of the world. i could't do this because the only artistic medium i have on my comuter is paintbrush. That is also the reason why it looks "digital". [[User:BenjaminS|Ben]]
**Wow Sharon, that was deep :)
**Ben, I like your idea about putting "Conservapedia" on top of a world map. I started to mess around with it a little and like the results so far. I will post it on here once it is presentable.--[[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 22:39, 6 January 2007 (EST)

[[Image:Conservapedia logo idea -2.JPG]]
This is my logo suggestion --JessicaS 11:41, 7 January 2007 (EST)

File:Conservapedia logo idea -2.JPG

2007-01-07T16:39:34Z

JessicaS:

Conservapedia:Logo

2007-01-07T16:33:50Z

JessicaS:

Conservapedia:Logo

2007-01-07T16:32:04Z

JessicaS:

== Conservapedia Logo ==

*Also, I meant to ask you about the logo yesterday and completely forgot. I have fooled around making a couple logos but am not very happy with the results. I am assuming the colors should be blue, white and other neutral colors or maybe red (to match the featured aritcle and news headers). Let me know if you have a particular color scheme in mind. I'm also trying to decide what the logo should be based up, a cross or the letter C for example. So if you have any imput or ideas on this topic let me know. Sorry about this being so long!--[[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 14:01, 5 January 2007 (EST)
**'''Reply:''' I don't have any particular color scheme in mind. However, the colors of the logo need to blend well with the rest of the site. Post anything you have on here and we can improve them. Also, I came up with the logo below but Mr. Schlafly and I both agree that it is a little too republican. Even so, the colors and the "dullness" of this image are sortof what we are looking for.

:: [[Image:Logo_Concept.png]]

:: If anyone else has a good idea for a logo feel free to post it here. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 14:24, 5 January 2007 (EST)

*Here is my favorite one:

:[[Image:LOGO3.jpg|200px]]

:There is something weird about it, but I can't quite tell what it is. Also, it doesn't say Conservapedia on it, but I can change that if you want me to. Please critique it, and I will improve it with your suggestions.

:Thank you!

:--[[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 16:01, 5 January 2007 (EST)

:PS: It doesn't really have that white background. It is supposed to be just the circle. [[User:SharonS|Sharon]]

* Here is my logo suggestion. I borrowed the C from sharon.
:[[Image:Conservalogo.JPG]]

:[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]]

**Good work Ben! I have two comments about your logo: This may just be me, but the ovals sort of look like orbits of electrons around the nucleus in the bohr model of the atom, implying that Conservapedia is a scientific encyclopedia, while we really have content on all topics. The image looks a little "digital", meaning you can see the pixels creating that jagged look around the edges of the letters and lines. You might be able to fix this by adjusting your program to make higher quality images with more pixels.--[[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 17:56, 5 January 2007 (EST)
**Ben, it looks like Saturn. -Sarah
**Thank you sharon, I agree on the first point; my original intention was to place the "Conservapedia" on top of one of those oval maps of the world. i could't do this because the only artistic medium i have on my comuter is paintbrush. That is also the reason why it looks "digital". [[User:BenjaminS|Ben]]
**Wow Sharon, that was deep :)
**Ben, I like your idea about putting "Conservapedia" on top of a world map. I started to mess around with it a little and like the results so far. I will post it on here once it is presentable.--[[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 22:39, 6 January 2007 (EST)

[[Image:Conservapedia logo idea.JPG]]
Here is my logo suggestion
--JessicaS 11:32, 7 January 2007 (EST)

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-01-06T16:57:41Z

JessicaS:

I think that we should call the page "Wikipedia."

Tim,

Thanks for your suggestion, but I'm inclined to disagree. "Wackypedia" conveys an important and valid point that merely calling it "Wikipedia" would not. --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:54, 21 December 2006 (EST)

Man oh man! We are really beating Wikipedia up!
[[Will N.]]

*Indeed. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:35, 6 January 2007 (EST)

Out of idle curiosity, is the important and valid point that "wikipedia is wacky"?

[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]]

The point here is that if we want to be a credible website we should call things by their proper names. If you want to make the point that Wikipedia is waky or biased or whatever, do it in the body of the article. I think that if Wikipedia had an article on Conservapedia, but called it Conserva'''stupid'''ia, you would not like it, and would probably include it in your list of Wikipedia bias. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 11:56, 6 January 2007 (EST)

I TOTALY agree with Tim,

User talk:DeborahB.

2007-01-06T16:36:28Z

JessicaS:

Debate:Should the term list entries be included in Conservapedia's entry count?

2007-01-05T23:07:37Z

JessicaS:

No. they do not contain substance.

Tim, I disagree with your change on the page count. The study pages are very useful and should qualify towards page count. For example, a page of what are the most important Modern Terms beginning in "M" is a valuable (and even debatable) page that should count towards the total. I'm reverting the page back. Feel free to take a vote on this if you like. --Aschlafly 00:40, 5 January 2007 (EST)

I disagree. The goal is to eventually have as many terms as possible, not just the best or most important ones. The pages are not there to show what the most important terms are, they are to sort the terms to make it easier to find them. (Tim S.)

:Counter - The study guide pages are important entries that make Conservapedia better than other encyclopedias like Wackypedia. These entries take more time to build than an ordinary entry, and are extremely helpful to students. An entry about blitzkrieg, for example, only tells a student about one entry. But the Modern Era Terms B gives the student more information and a way to learn far more than simply blitzkrieg. These are important entries that should be part of the overall count.--Aschlafly 17:24, 5 January 2007 (EST)

The term lists don't exactly qualify as entries, but they are a extremely important part of Conservapedia. For example, since we do not have a printed list of the Modern Era Terms, I will be relying on the lists on Conservapedia to tell me the terms I need to know for our upcoming final exam. If the term list were not there, I would have to find important terms in the lecture and search for them one by one and would most likely still miss many key terms. This shows just how valuable the terms lists are. They make studying easy and save hours of time. Therefore, I feel that the term lists are just as important as the term pages.

As I said before, I'm not sure that the term lists are not technically "entries". Perhaps we should replace "entries" with another word such as "pages" in the first sentence.

--[[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 17:44, 5 January 2007 (EST)

No
I do not think that they qualify as "entries"

Africa

2007-01-05T01:45:23Z

JessicaS:

The continent south of [[Europe]] and south-east of [[Asia]]. Is that all we know about it? Somebody add something please.

Perhaps the roosts off European imperialism date back as early as 1492, when Columbus discovered the New World and Spain soon sent conquistadors. But in the 1800s European imperialism began to focus in particular on Africa, for the following reasons.

The invention of the steam engine encouraged Europeans to explore the interior of the African continent, and cables and railroads facilitated communications and transportation as well.

Africa was an easy target for the Europeans. It was easy because Europeans had better weapons and could easily defeat African tribes, who were divided among themselves. The many different ethnic groups and languages spoken in Africa also made it difficult for the continent to unify and defend itself. Meanwhile, Africa was attractive because it had a profitable slave trade, and the rivalries created by the slave trade made it easier for European countries to divide and conquer.

Malaria was historically a problem in Africa (and still is today), but the antidote “quinine” was discovered that immunized Europeans against contracting it.

Aided by all of the above, the Scotsman explorer and missionary David Livingston explored central Africa in the late 1860s. He was searching for the source of the mighty Nile River. Because the Nile unusual in flowing south-to- north, its source could only be in central Africa in the vicinity of Congo.

But Livingstone was gone for years without any communication. A news reporter from America, Henry Stanley, decided to travel to Africa to look for him. Upon finding a stranger who stuck out like a sore thumb in the middle of central Africa, Stanley uttered the famous line, “Dr. Livingstone, I presume?” Indeed, Stanley had found Livingstone alive and well, and Stanley later returned to Africa to sign treaties with chiefs near the Congo River. Belgium King Leopold II used these treaties to gain control for himself (not Belgium) over the region.

Leopold II exploited the region for personal profit, building a\large rubber plantations for the natives to work on. This destroyed the farming community and compelled the workers to toil for unreasonably low wages. The working conditions on these plantations were very harsh. Eventually an international outcry caused the Belgian government to take over the region, and name it the Belgian Congo. But this also increased competition among European powers for African colonies.

France was another European power competing for control of the Congo, which contained valuable copper and tin deposits. Further to the south, in what is South Africa today, there were even richer gold and silver deposits. The European powers saw much wealth in Africa in the form of Minerals and wanted this for themselves. They also wanted plantations that could produce rubber, palm oil, and even cocoa (chocolate) for the European factories.

To minimize armed conflict the Europeans held the Berlin Conference in 1884-1885 to divide Africa among them, without regard to what the tribes of Africa wanted. Ethnic and cultural differences within Africa were also ignored, and lines of demarcation were arbitrarily drawn for the sole benefit of the European nations. All of Africa except for Ethiopia (which successful resisted Italian control in 1896) and Liberia where divided and taken by European nations.

One of Africa’s Biggest and wealthiest countries today is South Africa, located on the southern tip of the continent. It has a very advantageous location for trade routes by sea from Western Europe to India and the Far East. As a result, there was far more immigration by Europeans to South Africa than any other region of Africa, and whites of European ancestry completely ruled South Africa until the late 1900s. Since then, democracy has brought representative government to the African ethnic groups. The World Cup (soccer) will be played in 2010 in South Africa, the first time it has ever been held in Africa.

The Dutch (or Boers) were the first to establish a European settlement in southern Africa, at Cape Colony on the very southern tip in 1652. This port supplied ships on the way to the Indiana Ocean. The Dutch exploited the labor of African slaves and set up farming communities that displaced the native Africans. In the 1800s the British arrived and took over Cape Colony, and disfavored the continuation of the Dutch slavery system. The Dutch then moved inland, further north, in what is called the Great Trek. This created further conflict with the native Africans

In the late 1800s, an African ethnic group known as the Zulus rose to power in southern Africa, led by a military African genius named Shaka. But his successors could not retain power. By 1887 the British, with better military technology, defeated the Zulus.

The Boer War broke out between the British and the Boers in 1899. The dispute was sparked by disagreements over land, access to diamonds and gold discovered in South Africa, and whether immigrants should have political rights. The British won this brutal war, and in 1902 established the Union of South Africa to include all the Boers republics. This country was controlled by the British but enjoyed some self-rule.

European imperialism on the African continent had both good and bad effects. On the good side, the Europeans brought advances in technology, built hospitals, and improved the infrastructure, such as railroads, telephones, telegraphs, sanitation and other public works. This improved trade and communications, and reduced disease. Europeans also built schools, but used them to teach European language and culture rather than respecting local traditions. Literacy did improve as a result, however. On the bad side, the Europeans displaced Africans from their individual farms and shifted them into working for European businesses. Africans lost control of their land and saw a reduction in their own food crops. Europeans also completely disrupted African cultural groups and village life, resulting in arbitrary geographical boundaries that continue to cause war and strife to this day.

Collective farming

2007-01-04T15:33:46Z

JessicaS:

Collective farming is when a government owns and plans a farm in a Communist counry.

Civil disobedience

2007-01-04T15:19:28Z

JessicaS:

Civil disobedience is to refuse to obey the law deliberately and publicly.

User:DanielleR.

2007-01-04T14:16:41Z

JessicaS:

'''Feel free to correct my mistakes, comment, and ask questions here.'''

[[Image:amazinghamsters.jpg|Isn't that cool?!?]]

----
'''Correction(s):'''

----
'''Comment(s):'''

Hello :) --[[User:JessicaS|Jess]] 10:44, 7 December 2006 (EST)

''My Reply'' '''ummm, 'hi' to you too... see you in history class!'''''

Thanks --[[User:JessicaS|Jess]] 12:23, 8 December 2006 (EST)

I love the hamster picture!--[[User:JessicaS|Jess]] 13:17, 8 December 2006 (EST)

''My Reply'' '''I know! Isn't that amazing!'''

Danielle, Merry Christmas!!--[[User:JessicaS|Jess]] 10:00, 24 December 2006 (EST)

Danielle,

Merry Christmas!!!! Thanks for your contributions to our website!

--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:05, 24 December 2006 (EST)

I will see you in History class (Without braces:-)
sorry about missing you @ Music :(

----
'''Questions(s):'''

----
'''Don't forget to check out my talk page [[user talk:DanielleR.|here]] Thanks!'''

Pre Modern Terms G

2007-01-04T14:10:34Z

JessicaS:

Modern Era Terms P

2007-01-04T14:07:38Z

JessicaS:

Debate:Crusades... Good or Bad?

2007-01-03T15:09:49Z

JessicaS: /* Bad */

Were the [[Crusades]] Good or Bad

==Good==

The first crusade was fine. It was wrong of the [[Muslim]]s to be killing pilgrims who traveled to [[Jerusalem]]. It was okay to fight back. Today, if a nation took over Jerusalem and started killing [[Christian]]s who wanted to visit it, we would definitely fight back. On the other hand, the second and fourth crusades were not right and have left an embarrassing scar on the Christian world to this day. I don't know whose idea it was to sack [[Constantinople]], but it shows the true state of these other crusades. The third crusade was a slight exception to this general state of the later crusades, but its motives are debatable. I suppose that this whole argument really boils down to weather war is "right" or not. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 14:00, 13 December 2006 (EST)

I don't think either Billy or Tim really understand certain aspects of the crusades. First of all, Billy said there was no such thing as a just war, but really there are just reasons to fight. Not all the crusades were just but to say that no war is just is false. Billy quoted "Love thy neighbor as thy self." That's right but sometimes you need to choose the lesser of sins. Which is worse, to let the defenseless be slaughtered or to defend the defenseless? Either way you're violating the commandment. Which is why there is reconciliation. ''Double Edge''

Well said Double Edge. War is never morally right, war is never good. God never intended for war, but sadly, man is in a fallen state and has turned away from this original intent. War has become a very real thing in the world, but sometimes it is the lesser of two evils. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 18:19, 14 December 2006 (EST)

I don't see anything wrong with having a Christian holy war. Making Jerusalaem safe for defenseless pilgrims was a worthy goal. The Crusades were good.

Mr. Schlafly

==Bad==

Contrary to what some people believe I believe there is no such thing as a just war because war in and of itself is unjust, calling it a “Holy War” doesn’t change anything in fact it makes it worse because you are lying to yourself and your comrades ( no war is holy, just like no war is just.) The reason we know that no war is holy or just is that it is not just or holy to kill people for personal gain( if that is just then why are there laws and commandments to follow?). War goes against our teachings because we learn from the Bible and Jesus’ teachings to treasure human life and to be compassionate towards each other. You are neither treasuring human life nor being compassionate when you are killing your neighbor.
[[Billy M.=)]]

I Hate to say it but I Agree with Billy here, but not for the same reasons.
You can't justify a war just to protect pilgrims. It was not necessary for Christians to make pilgrimages to Jerusalem. Unlike Islam Christianity does NOT require pilgrimages. Jerusalem was nothing more than a tourist attraction. The Christian Pilgrims should have been smart enough to not go there because they could be killed. There is no justification for the crusades as a "Holy War." Christianity is not a violent religion. We do not start wars just because some Christians get murdered, if we did, we would be at war with China and many other countries that persecute Christians. A Country has a right to control who comes into that country. The Muslims had a right to control who came to Jerusalem. This does not mean that they were justified in killing the Christians, but the Christians should not have assumed the right to go wherever they wanted regardless of the wishes of the people who live there. If Muslims all of a sudden decided that they wanted to make pilgrimages to America for some reason, and did not think that the American government should have a say in the matter, we wouldn't let them would we? There may have been justification for a political war against the Muslims, if they were a threat to the the European countries. Even if there was reason for a political war, the crusades went way too far, and there was no justification for a holy war. The Pope was wrong to promise spiritual benefits to those who fought in the war. He tricked many people into joining the crusades because they thought that it would make them go to heaven if they died. Also most of the crusades were only fought for ambition and plunder.

Tim

Although I do not believe that the crusades were good, I Agree with double edge on one point: There ''IS'' such a thing as a just war! Billy's circular reasonings (see above) do not change that.

[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]]

Baaad!!!!!!!
--[[User:JessicaS|Jess]] 10:09, 3 January 2007 (EST)

Debate:Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?

2007-01-03T15:08:09Z

JessicaS: /* No */

== No ==

No!!!!

[[User:DeborahB.|Deborah]]

NOOO!!!!!!!!
--[[User:JessicaS|Jess]] 10:08, 3 January 2007 (EST)

== Yes ==

User talk:DeborahB.

2007-01-03T14:57:47Z

JessicaS:

Gestapo

2007-01-03T00:47:04Z

JessicaS:

The Gestapo was the secret police forcs of Nazi Germany.

Gaza Strip

2007-01-03T00:44:13Z

JessicaS:

The Gaza Strip was part of Palestine until it fell under Egyptian adminisrtion in the year 1967.

User talk:DeborahB.

2007-01-03T00:37:19Z

JessicaS:

Ghetto

2007-01-02T23:48:55Z

JessicaS:

The term ghetto is usually reffered to as the slums of a city or town. Historicaly, the term ghetto was used to describe the parts of European cites where [[Jews]] settled or were forced to live.

User:DanielleR.

2006-12-24T15:00:47Z

JessicaS:

'''Feel free to correct my mistakes, comment, and ask questions here.'''

[[Image:amazinghamsters.jpg|Isn't that cool?!?]]

----
'''Correction(s):'''

----
'''Comment(s):'''

Hello :) --[[User:JessicaS|Jess]] 10:44, 7 December 2006 (EST)

''My Reply'' '''ummm, 'hi' to you too... see you in history class!'''''

Thanks --[[User:JessicaS|Jess]] 12:23, 8 December 2006 (EST)

I love the hamster picture!--[[User:JessicaS|Jess]] 13:17, 8 December 2006 (EST)

''My Reply'' '''I know! Isn't that amazing!'''

Danielle, Merry Christmas!!--[[User:JessicaS|Jess]] 10:00, 24 December 2006 (EST)

----
'''Questions(s):'''

----
'''Don't forget to check out my talk page [[user talk:DanielleR.|here]] Thanks!'''

User talk:DeborahB.

2006-12-24T14:59:14Z

JessicaS:

User talk:SharonS

2006-12-24T14:58:20Z

JessicaS:

Welcome to SharonS's talk page. Please enter any messages you have for me below.

Merry Christmas!!--[[User:JessicaS|Jess]] 09:58, 24 December 2006 (EST)

User talk:DeborahB.

2006-12-20T22:31:46Z

JessicaS:

User talk:DeborahB.

2006-12-20T15:46:39Z

JessicaS:

User talk:DeborahB.

2006-12-19T22:27:26Z

JessicaS:

User talk:DanielleR.

2006-12-19T22:23:33Z

JessicaS:

'''Welcome to my page! Don't forget to visit my user page [[User:DanielleR.|here]]! Please leave any comments or start any conversations here!'''

[[Image:Danielle.jpg|my name]] [[Image:violin.jpg|I love the violin (now if I could only get vibrato down...)]] [[Image:piano_.jpg|I wish that this was my piano, but it's not...!]] [[Image:hamsters.jpg|Aren't they cute!]]

----
'''Comments:'''

I LOVE your pictures (the hamsters are soo cute:)) --[[User:JessicaS|Jess]] 12:24, 8 December 2006 (EST)

''My Reply'' '''Thanks! I love hamsters. Right now we have five!'''

Hey!
"Crazy Violin friend" Thanks for the picture. I love it. --[[User:JessicaS|Jess]] 12:32, 8 December 2006 (EST)

''My Reply'' '''You're welcome!'''

Sorry :)--[[User:JessicaS|Jess]] 15:34, 8 December 2006 (EST)

''My Reply''
'''Hey Jessica,'''
'''Don't forget about handbell practice Friday the 15th!''' [[Image:handbells.jpg|Don't forget! (Like I did once...)]]

Thanks for the handbell picture :)--[[User:JessicaS|Jess]] 15:41, 8 December 2006 (EST)

''My Reply'' '''You're welcome! Scroll over the picture for a reminder! I'm IMing Caroline and she wanted me to tell you.'''
----
'''Conversations:'''

I will see you on friday :)--[[User:JessicaS|Jess]] 16:09, 11 December 2006 (EST)

''My Reply'' '''Yup!'''

----
[[Image:flute_.jpg|Not me, but whoever she is, she's playing a C]]

Sorry about hand bells. I totally forgot. Wish I hadn't missed playing Princess Royale.

--[[User:JessicaS|Jess]] 17:23, 19 December 2006 (EST)

Ch'in Shih Huang Ti

2006-12-12T15:41:59Z

JessicaS:

The emperor Ch'in Shih Huang Ti came to power in 246 B.C. He was responsible for starting the Great Wall of [[China]]. Though he did many things, the most interesting was his tomb. the tomb was deveded into many chambers where his possessions were stored, among these possessions were crossbows already cocked so that they could shoot tomb robbers.

Ancient Terms C

2006-12-12T15:37:30Z

JessicaS:

[[Ancient Terms A|A]]-[[Ancient Terms B|B]]-[[Ancient Terms C|C]]-[[Ancient Terms D|D]]-[[Ancient Terms E|E]]-[[Ancient Terms F|F]]-[[Ancient Terms G|G]]-[[Ancient Terms H|H]]-[[Ancient Terms I|I]]-[[Ancient Terms J|J]]-[[Ancient Terms K|K]]-[[Ancient Terms L|L]]-[[Ancient Terms M|M]]-[[Ancient Terms N|N]]-[[Ancient Terms O|O]]-[[Ancient Terms P|P]]-[[Ancient Terms Q|Q]]-[[Ancient Terms R|R]]-[[Ancient Terms S|S]]-[[Ancient Terms T|T]]-[[Ancient Terms U|U]]-[[Ancient Terms V|V]]-[[Ancient Terms W|W]]-[[Ancient Terms X|X]]-[[Ancient Terms Y|Y]]-[[Ancient Terms Z|Z]] [[Caesar's Commentaries]] [[Caligula]] [[Canaan]] [[Carthage]] [[caste]] [[Catal Huyuk]] [[Cato the Censor]] [[Celts]] [[Centuries]] [[Chaldeans]] [[Battle of Chalons]] [[Champollion, Jean]] [[Chandragupta Maurya]] [[Chavin Culture]] [[China]] [[Ch'in Shih Huang Ti]] [[Cicero]] [[city-states]] [[civilization]] [[Classicism]] [[Claudius]] [[Cleopatra]] [[Code of Manu]] [[Cohorts]] [[Colosseum]] [[comedy]] [[Confucianism]] [[Confucius]] [[Constantine]] [[Constantinople]] [[Constitutional Monarchy]] [[consul]] [[Copts]] [[Council of Nicaea]] [[Covenant]] [[cuneiform]] [[Cynicism]] [[Cyrus]]

'''[[Ancient History Terms]]''' [[Middle Ages Terms]] [[Renaissance Terms]] [[Reformation Terms]] [[Age of Exploration Terms]] [[Pre Modern Terms]]

User talk:ChrisS

2006-12-11T22:21:36Z

JessicaS:

Hi Everyone!

Comments:

Questions:

Corrections:

''I will edit the paper now. Andrew's paper will make a great page on Hernan Cortes. Sorry about the link! My brain is still numb from Chemistry.''

''Sharon''

Anything Else:

Toodles!

Christopher, you are sadly mistaken. "Michelangelo" is the correct spelling. ''Please'' don't question me. I know these things. Michelangelo is an ''Italian'' name. The vowel combination "ae" does not even exist in the Italian Language! (Except in very rare cases...) "Michael" is the English spelling of the Italian name "Michele"... which are both spelled and pronounced differently. Thus, not only is "Michelangelo" the correct spelling, but "Mee-keh-LAHN-jeh-loh" is the correct pronounciation. ;)

P.S. You spelled "Comments" incorrectly, at the top of this page (coments). ;)

xoxoxo[[User:Sarah_B|Always Right]]

Chris,
I'm sorry to dissapoint you, but I didn't plagerize that :) (oh yea BTW...I do know what plagerize means, you didn't have to put the (steal) in. Gosh, I didn't know you thought I was ''that'' stupid :) It said Deborah because I was looking at ''Sarah's'' amazing paper and I saw she forgot to put in a few spaces under the pictures. (yes her paper really is amazing, I wasn't being sarcastic. Isn't she sick!?!?!)

From your dumb blonde cousin :)

~Deborah B.~

Lazy bum :)

[[User:DeborahB.|~Deborah~]]

I am glad that you stopped impersonating ben, but please stop doing that on philips page (it is getting realy annoying)
toodles!

the unknown one (--[[User:JessicaS|Jess]] 17:19, 11 December 2006 (EST))
p.s. My talk page has been gone to more than yours.
P.p.s. Mine were all '''REAL'''

User talk:ChrisS

2006-12-11T22:19:23Z

JessicaS:

User talk:ChrisS

2006-12-11T22:18:27Z

JessicaS:

User talk:SharonS

2006-12-11T21:11:23Z

JessicaS:

Welcome to SharonS's talk page. Please enter any messages you have for me below.

that is realy neat! do you realy like horses?
I love horses.--[[User:JessicaS|Jess]] 10:31, 11 December 2006 (EST)

I like the new picture on your page. :) --[[User:JessicaS|Jess]] 16:11, 11 December 2006 (EST)

User talk:DanielleR.

2006-12-11T21:09:11Z

JessicaS:

'''Welcome to my page! Don't forget to visit my user page [[User:DanielleR.|here]]! Please leave any comments or start any conversations here!'''

[[Image:Danielle.jpg|my name]] [[Image:violin.jpg|I love the violin (now if I could only get vibrato down...)]] [[Image:piano_.jpg|I wish that this was my piano, but it's not...!]] [[Image:hamsters.jpg|Aren't they cute!]]

----
'''Comments:'''

I LOVE your pictures (the hamsters are soo cute:)) --[[User:JessicaS|Jess]] 12:24, 8 December 2006 (EST)

''My Reply'' '''Thanks! I love hamsters. Right now we have five!'''

Hey!
"Crazy Violin friend" Thanks for the picture. I love it. --[[User:JessicaS|Jess]] 12:32, 8 December 2006 (EST)

''My Reply'' '''You're welcome!'''

Sorry :)--[[User:JessicaS|Jess]] 15:34, 8 December 2006 (EST)

''My Reply''
'''Hey Jessica,'''
'''Don't forget about handbell practice Friday the 15th!''' [[Image:handbells.jpg|Don't forget! (Like I did once...)]]

Thanks for the handbell picture :)--[[User:JessicaS|Jess]] 15:41, 8 December 2006 (EST)

''My Reply'' '''You're welcome! Scroll over the picture for a reminder! I'm IMing Caroline and she wanted me to tell you.'''
----
'''Conversations:'''

I will see you on friday :)--[[User:JessicaS|Jess]] 16:09, 11 December 2006 (EST)

----
[[Image:flute_.jpg|Not me, but whoever she is, she's playing a C]]

User talk:SharonS

2006-12-11T15:31:32Z

JessicaS:

Welcome to SharonS's talk page. Please enter any messages you have for me below.

that is realy neat! do you realy like horses?
I love horses.--[[User:JessicaS|Jess]] 10:31, 11 December 2006 (EST)

User talk:SharonS

2006-12-11T02:09:55Z

JessicaS:

Welcome to SharonS's talk page. Please enter any messages you have for me below.

Sharon, good job on the robespierre term! :)
--[[User:JessicaS|Jess]] 20:29, 10 December 2006 (EST)

My studying is going great!
Which three lectures?
I was just studying the terms he handed out in class.--[[User:JessicaS|Jess]] 20:48, 10 December 2006 (EST)

Thanks alot!!
By the way... I love the new picture on your page.
Do you have many horses?
--[[User:JessicaS|Jess]] 21:09, 10 December 2006 (EST)

Andrew

2006-12-11T02:00:49Z

JessicaS:

Andrew was one of Jesus' twelve disciples.He was also the brother of Simon Peter.

User talk:DeborahB.

2006-12-11T01:51:45Z

JessicaS: