CalicoPenn

"by this profit-driven abortion business" The above sentence is just one of the reasons I tend to look with a great deal of mistrust at statements by think tanks with an ideological bent. Planned Parenthood is NOT a profit-driven organization - it is a non-profit organization. This little bit of dishonesty by the spokesperson is enough for me to discount pretty much everything she might have said on the issue. Also, the attempt to link the abortion services with governmental funding is dishonest as well - anyone who hasn't learned already that governmental medical funding can never be used for abortion services needs to crawl out from behind their ideological rock and do some learning. If you wish to oppose abortion and Planned Parenthood, I'll support your right to do so - if you need to use lies in order to make your case? Then I'll consider your case weak and won't take you seriously. Hmm, probably why I don't take many politicians or media types seriously. ps - for those thinking I won't apply this to "my" side? I publically humiliated an ACLU spokesman at a meeting of local Democrats who had folks convinced that the NDAA would allow the military to arrest US Citizens in their homes and hold then indefintely when I read the paragraph in the NDAA that specifically forbade that and challenged him on whether he had actually read the act and was lying about it if he had.

Some of us would say that the system worked the way it's supposed to work.

"The NRA show's host, Ginny Simone, argued that proponents of the idea "admit this is about banning the ugliest guns, it's about cosmetics and it has nothing to do about how a firearm works." Hammer responded, "Well, you know, banning people and things because of the way they look went out a long time ago. But here they are again. The color of a gun. The way it looks. It's just bad politics." Yep, Hammer actually equated discrimination against people on the basis of race and ethnicity to banning assault weapons. And while it's true that Hammer is no longer the president of the organization, it's worth noting that she remains a lobbyist for the group and her comments were aired by NRA News. What's more, for the record, Feinstein and her allies have not "admitted" they want to limit sales of "ugly" guns; they've specified "the most dangerous guns." I'm beginning to think the NRA is not prepared for a serious, mature conversation about public policy."

How do you handle Summer Camp? You get the food your given both in the dining hall and from the QM if you're cooking at your site? Next time, cook the big pot of chili - the alternative is grape jelly sandwiches on white bread (no peanut butter, just in case one of them has a peanut allergy you don't know about). As for Patrol Cooking - just flat out tell the SPL and PLs that in 2013, there will be no menus with hot dogs, hamburgers, tacos or spaghetti approved - end of story. You are a boy led troop, not boy run - tell them you are exercising your privilege as SM to veto those menu choices this year.(This message has been edited by calicopenn)

"And as you point out it was Democrats who stood in staunch opposition to civil rights legislation." No, I believe I just confirmed that SOUTHERN Democrats by and large stood in staunch opposition to civil rights legislation. I also pointed out the southern REPUBLICANS also stood in staunch opposition to civil rights legislation. NORTHERN Democrats and Republicans by and large favored civil rights legislation. There were some northern Democrats and Republicans that opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act and it should be noted that more northern Republicans voted aganst the act than northern Democrats. Again, I re-iterate - this wasn't a Democrat/Republican battle - this was a North/South battle. The opposition to the civil rights act came from the southern represenatives and senators - of both parties - and let me rimind you again, that from the southern states, NO Republicans voted for the civil rights act but some Democrats did. As for the list of "Dixiecrat" Senators - technically, only one person on that list was a Dixiecrat, and that was Strom Thurmond, and he did switch parties in 1964. The Dixicrats were a break-away group from the Democrats back in 1948 who were upset with the Democratic Party platform calling for integration and civil rights. Calling themselves the States' Rights Democratic Party, they ran Strom Thurmond as their candidate for President. The latter use of the term "dixiecrat" was a media invention to try to lump all southern politicians from the Democratic Party (heck, there are even references to Jesse Helms being a "dixiecrat" and he was elected to the Senate in the 70's as a Republican). Finally, before jumping all over the "liberals" and "democrats" for demonizing "modern conservatives" and teh Republican party, there are former officeholders of the Republican party that have jumped on that bandwagon too, publicly letting folks know just how disgusted they are with the current incarnation of the Republican Party. Olympia Snowe of Maine, a very popular politician in Maine who would have easily cruised back in to office had she run last year decided to leave office because of her disgust with what her party has turned into.

There is no doubt that the Democratic politicians of the southern states during the 1960's were opposed to the Civil Rights Act. But to use that to paint a broad brush against the current iteration of the Democratic party is a bit disingenuous. Majorities of both the Democratic and the Republican parties voted for the Civil Rights Act from the North. From the South (defined as the 8 states that seceded during the civil war), only 7 House members and 1 Senator voted for the Civil Rights Act - and they were all Democrats. No Republican politician from the South voted for the Civil Rights Act. The divide over the Civil Rights Act was much less a party divide as it was a geographical divide. Shortly thereafter, Barry Goldwater, in the 1964 election, won 6 states - one was Arizona, the other 5 were southern states that had voted Democratic for 100 years. This set the stage for Nixon's Southern Strategy, which was specifically designed to appeal to the racist sensibilities of southern whites to get them to switch their votes to the Republican party. I don't think anyone can deny that the strategy was successful. The southern states have been fairly reliable for the Republican Party ever since, with a few outliers (Carter (a Southerner) took the Southern states and Clinton and Obama have each won one or two Southern states in elections - that Clinton, a Southerner, did not take more southern states in his first campaign says something about the success of the Southern Strategy as well). That some of the Dixiecrats remained in office so long after the 1960's can probably be attributed more toward folks being familiar with them and having voted against the Civil Rights Act. People don't like change so they'll vote for the familiar. Strom Thurmond did change parties - and he did so because his party was evolving away from his views and the Republican Party, partly due to the Southern Strategy, was moving towards his views. Robert Byrd did not change parties because in his case, his views were evolving right along with the Democratic Party's views - Byrd even said his greatest regret was voting against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. More to the point, going back in time 50 years to call out the Democratic Party or 150 years to extoll the virtues of the Republican party is really useless and is the refuge of those with a weak argument. It's the equivalent of a Scout saying "But Johnny did it too". We don't live in a static society - there have been a whole lot of changes in the last 150 years. In that time, there have been a whole lot of changes in our political parties as well. The Democratic Party of the 1960's is a wholly different beast then the Democratic Party of 2013. Same goes for the Republicans. We're living in the here and now - if you have to reach to the past to say "Well, Democrats did this in the 1960's" or "Well, Republican's did this in the 1860's", in order to defend your party, then I imagine you must know deep down that something is just not right and you're defending something you're not sure you really believe in anymore.

I didn't know that Fox News had a Rabbi on staff.

As I recall, it's not "security of a free state" - it's "security of a free State". The difference? State is capitalized ang given it's location in the sentence, that means something. It means the amendment is talking about the security of the States. The folks who wrote the Bill of Rights were very much concerned that the States themselves were protected, not only from the Federal Government, but more importantly, their neighboring States. There was quite a bit of fear that some of the States might try to take over other States, or parts of States. Back when the Bill of Rights were written, boundary issues weren't yet settled, and there were still occasional armed skirmishes. Like the Federal Government, States were prohibited from having a standing army - the Second Amendment provided for individual gun ownership so that the States would have a body of citizens it could call upon to create a militia in order to defend the States.

A few suggestions: For US flights, check Orbitz, Travelocity or Expedia - they're the most popular tavel booking sites in the US - they'll likely have better access to domestic flights than Skyscanner or Last Minute. Don't forget to factor in your cost to get from the UK to a destination across the pond and look at it as a total. The flight from Charlotte to Toronto may be cheapest, but unless the flight from the UK to Charlotte is among the cheapest, what you save on one leg may be spent on the other. The most popular route from Toronto into the US appears to be Chicago O'Hare. It's likely that the reverse is true, or nearly true as well. Chicago O'Hare is a major international airport and is one of the largest airport hubs in the world. It has a lot of flights coming in from the UK either with a stop-over in New York or as non-stops. Are you sure you're getting the lowest possible prices by flying into and out of a regional airport like Charlotte? Other airports to consider would be Atlanta, NYC, Washington DC and Boston. Consider, too, that it's not neccessarily all about money. Things can go wrong, and if there's mechanical issues with a plane, or weather issues, you're more likely to get re-assigned at an airport with a lot more planes going to your destination. Finally, how many is a "small contingent" - I know the new millenium is all about do-it-yourself, but this might be one of those times when engaging the services of a travel agent, or working directly with an airline, might pay off.

I'm in Illinois and we don't have CCW (yet - the court gave our legislature time to pass a CCW law) but I have spoken to a couple of people who had no interest in guns who said they were thinking of getting a CCW and a gun. When I asked them why, they said it was because they were afraid. When I asked them what they were afraid of, they said they were afraid of the people that would go out and get CCW permits. They didn't see the irony in that at all.

"But who gets to tell me "no"? Based on what criteria?" How about our elected representatives, based on the criteria they devise? We certainly accept their "wisdom" in other apects of our lives, why are guns so sacrosanct? I might "need" a nitrous oxide delivery system for my car but lawmakers tell me I can't have it. We already have some form of arms control in this country. I might "need" to carry a sword but I'm told no in most jurisdictions (and how is that not a violation of the 2nd Amendment? After all, its not the "right to bear guns", it's the "right to bear arms" and isn't a sword one of the "arms" alluded to?). I might need a bazooka, but I'm told I can't have one. We certainly don't seem to mind restictions placed on other products. I've needed Sudafed far more often than I've needed a gun for home defense but I have to show ID and sign a registry every time I buy some, and I'm limited to the amount I can buy at any one time, but I can go into a sporting goods store and buy thousands of rounds of ammunition without so much as a by your leave.

Back to the NRA. As part of this whole mess, Wayne LaPierre has called for a national mental health registry. At the same time, the NRA will be the first to cry bloody murder if a politician were to suggest a national gun registry. Is it any wonder why, when faced with a school shooting in Connecticut last week, and a sniper attack on firefighters leading to 7 homes being destroyed on Christmas Eve, that the NRA is starting to look more and more irrelevant to the conversation?

New York City - Empire State Building. Police shootout with gunman results in 9 bystanders injured - most shot by the police. If the police, trained to shoot, can end up shooting other people, what makes us think people who don't train on a regular basis will do any better? What happens once we arm all these teachers and another incident happens with the armed teacher responding by shooting back - what happens to to the teacher that kills a couple of kids while trying to kill tha bad guy? Do we just chalk up that loss of life as "collateral damage" and move on? If you're a parent and say yes, then please do us all a favor - give your kids to the state right now, you don't deserve to have kids.

I can only think to paraphrase one of Keanu Reeves best lines from Parenthood: You have to get a license to drive a car, you have to get a license for your dog, you have to get a license to hunt, heck, you even have to get a license in order to fish, but they'll let any Tom, Dick or Harry be a dad.

And to you Trevorum: Joyeaux Solstice

Ann Coulter is great at taking research and ignoring massaging or ignoring some facts so that it fits in with her narrative. I read the Lott study she references. Other than being outdated, the authors admit far too often in the text that what they are suggesting may be explained by other causes. It generates statistics that aren't necessarily useful in an actual study - for instance, it has a table showing how many shootings took place in states without CCW laws, using the total states - it never identifies the states and it doesn't eliminate the states from the total that had no shootings at all. Its easy to say that in all states, there were 99 deaths and in 20 states with no CCW, there were 55 but without the raw data, we don't know if those 55 deaths took place in 5 states or 20 states and we don't know if the 44 deaths in CCW states were in 5 states or 30 states. Give us the raw data, please so we can determine if what you're saying makes sense. Using their method today? Of all the mass shootings in 2012, there were none in a No-CCW state this year - every single one of them took place in a CCW state. That holds true for 2011, 2010 and 2009 as well. In 2008, there was one mass shooting in a No-CCW state. Since 2000, there have been far more deaths and shootings in CCW states than in non-CCW states - the hypothesis of that study is that more CCW will lessen the number of shootings - but there have been more shootings since 1995, and more lethal incidents since 1995 as well. The hypothesis has been tested in the real world - and has failed. Ann mentions the number of shootings stopped by people with guns. She brings up the Appalachian School of Law but fails to mention that the folks who had guns were either current or former LEOs and that the shooting was over because the shooter had run out of ammunition before any of those armed folks were able to get to him. She mentions the shootings in a Pennsylvania school but doesn't mention that the student shot up the school, then ended his shooting spree, left the building, and was waiting for the police to arrive when the Assistant Principle retrieved his gun to hold the student. She mentions a shooting at a school dance in a restaurant stopped by the restaurant owner with a shotgun but doesn't mention that this shooter also ended his spree and had left the premises, had dropped his guns, and was waiting for the police. She mentions the church member who stopped a killing spree outside a Colorado church but failed to mention she was also a former LEO and was working as an armed security guard at the church - she was not a random civilian. No one apparently wants to mention where things went wrong when civilians intervened either. In 2005, a civilian in a Tacom, Washington mall pulled his handgun and confronted an armed assailant, was promptly shot 6 times, got no rounds off himself, and the shooter wounded 6 other people near the "hero" while shooting the "hero", or that in Tyler, Texas, in 2005, a civilian fired at a man on a rampage at a courthouse and was killed when the body-armored wearing man turned his AK-47 on him. The other nonsense being spouted off is the idea of the shootings happening at "gun free zones" and that it's because they are "gun free zones" that it happens - never mind that the "gun free zones" are also places where large numbers of people gather. A big deal is being made out of the so-called fact that the movie theater shooter in Aurora passed up 9 theaters closer to his home to attack the one in Aurora because the one in Aurora is a "gun free zone" when he deliberately chose that theater because it was one of the few that was showing the latest Batman movie at midnight. The Tuscon shooter certainly wasn't deterred by the knowledge that some of the people in the crowd he shot up might have been armed. What's really sad is that whenever we have one of these tragic shootings we are immediately inundated with the kind of bull-puckey Coulter spews in order to prevent us from talking about comprehensive solutions. What is reasonable? How about this - you can't own a gun in your state that is not approved by your state, or in a neighboring state in which you hold an active hunting license, to hunt. Semi-automatic weapons, including handguns, are not legal for hunting in most states. Want to play Rambo and fire off AR-15's and 9mm Glocks? Let people open up ranges where people can come in and pay to shoot the weapons - that'll add jobs which is good for the economy.

"One of the issues that is often brought up is that the police have the need for high-capacity magazines, but civilians do not." The real question is which is the tail and which is the dog? The police see a need for high capacity magazines because they're faced with the possibility that civilians they encounter (whether that civilian is a "criminal" (read gangbanger) or deranged like the Colorado shooter, or is stressed out in a domestic disturbance, or is just a guy who wants to help out if they see a crime being committed have high capacity magazines. If civilians didn't have access to high capacity magazines, would the police then feel that it's a neccessity to have high capacity magazines of their own? I've always found it interesting that many of the more strident pro-gun folks also like to loudly proclaim they are more pro-law enforcement than other people but completely ignore calls from law enforcement to restrict certain guns, and high capacity magazines, and who oppose concealed carry because it makes their jobs less safe. I oppose concealed carry - but I support your right to carry - I would much rather that folks that carry be required to carry openly - either by openly displaying the gun in a holster, or if the gun is carried under a coat, or in a purse, by some kind of identification device that will tell me at a glance that you're armed.

"guarded by men and women carrying the same type of firearms they don't trust me to own." When you join the military, they don't hand you an M-16 right out of the gate. You are trained and observed first to make sure you have the judgment to be trusted with an M-16 (if you join and all you talk about is how you can't wait to get your hands on an M-16, you'll never get your hands on one, you'll be released from the military before it happens). When you're given an M-16, you aren't given ammunition. You learn to tear it apart, put it together, clean it, care for it and are observed. When you do get ammunition, you're given blanks - and you are intently observed and trained on how to load, unload, shoot, and handle the weapon. Only after intense training and observation are you allowed to live fire the gun. Those men and women guarding us are well-trained, and well vetted. Yeah, I'll trust them over some guy who has never gone through that kind of training walking off the street and buying a civilian version of that weapon.

I'm probably going to be labeled as a heretic, and some fine folks who are dealing with children of their own that have been diagnosed with Autism/Asperger's are probably going to want to hang me from a yardarm but - so you have a kid in your troop identified with Aspergers - so what? There's a good chance I can walk into your Troop and start to plug at least half of your Troop members somewhere on the spectrum. Chances are you've had kids in your troop with Aspergers and Autism that were never diagnosed, and you never knew the difference because no one ever labeled them with it. The moment someone is labeled, you start to think differently - now the kid is "not quite right in the head". Stop thinking that way and start treating the lad as the individual he is and things will be much better for all.

"How many regimes would you like me to name that disarmed their subjects before killing them?" How likely do you think something like this would actually happen in the United States? There are approximately 325 million guns in the US - there isn't a force large enough to confiscate all our guns, and really, if we ever end up under that kind of military dictatorship, I doubt they would have any hesitation to unleash the worst kind of actions imaginable on the people. My opinion - the folks that are worried about the government confiscating their guns are paranoid and are not mentally stable enough to own guns anyway. If this were part of the standards, then the shooter in Connecticut wouldn't have had access to guns because nice, innocent Mom was also, according to her son, paranoid about the government and made sure her sons knew how to use guns just in case the government tried to take her guns. Perhaps her own paranoia prevented her from understanding that she shouldn't have had guns anywhere near a son she new to have mental health issues.

My Definition of Assault Weapon: Any military grade or copy of a military grade weapon and; any rifle, handgun or other weapon that is being used with a clip, drum or other ammunition holder carrying more than 6 rounds (at 6 rounds or under, the gun would not be an assault weapon - switch to a clip of 7 or more rounds and your non-assault weapon becomes an assault weapon). My deer hunting rifle holds 5 rounds - I've never needed more than 2. I don't need 10 rounds to go deer hunting, let alone 30. Guns have one purpose and one purpose only - to kill. Knives, cars, ropes - all have other purposes. Can you kill with them? Heck, you can kill with just about anything, depending on the victim and how intelligent or devious you are, but they are not designed to kill - it's an accidental function of their true function. In Connecticut, 26 people were gunned down by a maniac. In China, 22 people were knived by a maniac. The difference? 22 people in China are alive because although knives can kill, they really aren't a very effective weapon of mass death. If you are one of those people that like to counter gun deaths with deaths by car, knives, ropes, etc., then you should be one of those people that should never be allowed access to or ownership of a gun - never, ever. You are way too immature and ignorant to own a gun. In my opinion. Narrowly interpreting the 2nd Amendment? I haven't seen any legislation calling for amending the 2nd Amendment. I've seen lots of legislation calling for amending the 1st Amendment by people that don't like the freedoms that grants us. What I see are people wondering just when we're going to look at the 2nd Amendment and notice the words "Well-regulated" and start to take that part of it seriously as well. No reasonable person or group is calling for an outright ban on all guns but unreasonable people and groups are claiming that any restrictions on guns or any requirements for registration, or licensing, or education is as bad as a ban on guns. That's just not true - its part of being well-regulated. I'm fine with banning clips, etc. that hold more than 6 bullets. I'm fine with banning private ownership of military and military-style weapons. I'd like to see the gun show loopholes closed. I'd like to see not only a requirement that you get a "firearm owner's identification card" in order to possess a gun, I'd like to see an educational component added on gun safety in order to get that FOID card. I'd like to see every gun titled like a car, and registered with the state - and that the title gets sent to the state when the gun is sold, given as a gift, stolen or destroyed with the new owners info sent to the state to send a new title out. I'd like that to be retroactive - every gun currently in existence in the US get titled, even those in museums. Give folks 10 years to get it done - afterwards, if found with an untitled gun, the gun gets confiscated and the person is fined $25,000 per untitled gun. I'd like to see an end to concealed weapons - go to open weapons - if you carry a gun on your person or in your car, either the gun, or some other indicator that you are armed, must be visible at all times. Failure to do so? Automatic 10 years in prison with no parole. Honest gunowners will never face that penalty - only criminals. As Beavah states so well, the idea that we need guns to protect us from our government is hogwash. That hasn't been a legitimate argument for decades. When your government can target you with a drone strike from 5,000 miles away, there's really no "Red Dawn" scenario that will ever be successful. Self protection? You're more likely to be shot by a relative or by yourself than some stranger coming up to rob you. Speaking of which, years ago, I was asked to help a guy from the IL Rifle Association give a demonstration on why Illinois should allow concealed weapons. The point of the demonstration was to show how people that are armed can defend themselves against muggers. I role-played the mugger for him. The first 8 times we did the role-playing, I "shot" him before he had a chance to pull or aim his gun - he complained that this wouldn't happen in real life. He gave up after the 9th role-play when I walked right up to him and, without saying a word, "shot" him in the the back of the head. I think I made my point very well, and he regretted choosing me to do the role playing. All that being said, I'm not anti-gun. I hunt - I use guns. In a survival situation, I'll use my gun for what it's for, hunting for meat. I like shooting clays. I like shooting at targets. But I don't need to be armed every single second of the day in order to feel safe. If you're feeling that paranoid and unsafe, then frankly, you're one of those people that shouldn't be carrying a gun because you aren't likely to have the proper judgment needed in a time of crisis. Folks might remember the Arizona shooting - there was a person in the crowd who was armed - I'd hold him up as an example of a responsible gun owner. Why? Because he quickly assessed the situation and made the decision that him pulling his gun and blasting away would have been even worse.

Moose, In Cook County, Illinois, we have both the scantrons (the fill in the bubble ballots) and touch screen. The touch screens should generally take less time, and it prints on a roll a paper copy of how you voted that you can check before hitting the final "submit ballot". Cook County does audit random machines after the election by checking the electronic vote totals against the paper copies. There's only been 2 per precinct because they considered a "trial". I actually prefer the touch screens to the scantrons - the scantrons will tell you if you've missed a vote but can't tell you what is missed, and if it doesn't read a circle you have filled out, it still calls it a miss - you either have to let it go through, or void it and start the process all over again.

Moose, "Motor Voter" is the federal law that requires states to offer voter registration sign up when applying for drivers licenses and for social services (such as unemployment, food stamps, etc.) through a state agency. Perdidochas, Over the past couple of years, there have been proposals to eliminate the "motor voter" law as part of the effort to "get tough on voter fraud". The reporting on these don't end up on the front section - they tend to end up buried on page 20. Note on the long lines. I find it ironic that for all the BS Chicago gets slagged with about voting, there are rarely any long lines to vote in any precinct. When there are long lines, it's either because people are trying to vote on their way to work or on their way home and are just naturally bunching up (sort of like everyone going to the store at the same time - the lines are long but if you were there just an hour before, the cashiers were staring at the ceiling bored to tears), or because of some equipment malfunction. Both Cook County and the City of Chicago Dept. of Elections (Cook County is the most populated county in the state - it includes Chicago but the City of Chicago runs their own elections separately from the County) are very quick to get replacement equipment in place. The other counties in Illinois do a pretty good job of allocating resources as well. My suburban precinct had 8 machines available, including 2 that were touch screen. The neighboring precinct had 8 machines - things went very smoothly for the most part - the biggest hold up was the folks over 60 trying to use the touch screens - where it would take a computer savvy person 5 minutes or less to bang through the ballot (which also includes boatloads of judges), some of the older folks took 20 minutes or more, simply because they aren't as familiar with or trusting of technology. If you're in a precinct that only has 3 machines while the neighboring precinct has 6, then whoever is in charge of the elections for your county needs to be fired and replaced by the voters, either for utter incompetance, or because they are trying to game the votes.

Over the past 20 years or so, I've found that there is reality and their is Fox News fed, right-wing, tea-party, GOP "reality" which wants nothing whatsoever to do with facts and figures. To deny that there have been, and still continue to be, very real threats and attempts to suppress the vote, is akin to claiming the sky is green. To say that three black guys standing outside a single polling place, one of them holding a stick, is about vote supression while denying that voter ID laws, eliminating early voting days, eliminating same day registration, eliminating motor voter laws, and not staffing or equipping polling places appropriately to avoid hours long lines in multiple jurisdictions, and robo-calls by GOP operatives to try to convince folks that they vote on a Wednesday or their vote from the primary will carry over so they don't have to vote is the sign of someone not in touch with the real world. That one can spout statistics showing an increase in votes by minorities doesn't prove that voter suppression wasn't taking place - what it proves is that voter suppression failed in a lot of respects because the people rose up against it. To eliminate the long lines, we should be allowing internet voting. Of course that scares the bejebus out of Republicans because the ones that are going to embrace internet voting the most are going to be the 18 to 32 age group. We should also require, for Presidential elections, that each polling place be equipped with one machine for every 88 voters registered in a precinct. I came up with this figure using an assumption of the polling place being open for 11 hours, and an average of 15 minutes per person to cast a ballot, and an assumption of a 50% turn-out per precinct - it will take 44 people 11 hours to cast their votes. (If you have 100 people show up to vote and only 1 machine, with an average time of 15 minutes, it will take 25 hours to get everyone through).

The only problem with the learned Mr. Franklin's statement is that the Constitution doesn't guarantee the right to pursue happiness. The Declaration of Independence talks about the pursuit of happiness.