----------

I take it you've never heard of 'hiring from within,' huh? Time in service? That kind of stuff? I never said the guy was being hired from the outside.

Glucon's no more a liar and a racist than the man in the moon. He may some far-fetched ideas, but a liar and a racist, he's not. Sorry, but that distinct dishonor is yours, for this instant. Remember, there are over 800 pages of what you've said to and about other people, in the archives of this website. Plus, they're very easy to access. So, anyone, who wants to, can read for themselves just what kind of liar and racist you are by reading what you've written in the past. Try as you might, you can't erase the facts about your past writings. They speak volumes about you and your attitudes towards.

Nasty? I haven't even gotten close to "nasty." "Nasty" is still on the back burner. But, if you'd like, I'll move it up to the front burner.

And, yes, you ARE a liar. I identified you as one a few exchanges back. Maybe you'd like to go and re-read that particular exchange to refresh your "selective forgetfulness."

As to your comment, "and i dont think anyone into political correctness should
should be reading from the scriptures to anyone but them selves." Please, show me, in Scripture, where showing love and kindness to one's neighbors and strangers and the destitute, isn't "politically correct" and is wrong to do. Where is it condemned?

As a follow-up to "political correctness" being wrong, I realize that there are some differences between the Catholic and Protestant Bibles. Catholic and Protestant Bibles, both, include 27 books in the New Testament. Protestant Bibles have only 39 books in the Old Testament, however, while Catholic Bibles have 46. The seven books included in Catholic Bibles are: Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach, and Baruch. Catholic Bibles also include sections in the Books of Esther and Daniel which are not found in Protestant Bibles. These additional books are called the "Deuterocanonical" books. The Catholic Church considers these books to be inspired by the Holy Spirit. Am I wrong in my belief regarding this, Vern?

In spite of these differences, both share the Gosple of Matthew, from which I quoted. Given your unabashed propensity for demeaning minorities, and since you back-handeadly claim to be a Christian, a reminder of what God's Word says about treating the less fortunate, would be in order. Also, as Christians, it is our duty to call out those fellow believers who stray from following the Word. That, too, is Biblical.

Now, I'm not a Catholic. I'm a Protestant. But, I was married to a Catholic for over 20 years; we attended mass just about every week (either on Saturday evening or on Sunday mornings) and raised our children as Catholics. So, I guess my experiences and knowledge on the Bible(s) and theology would count for something.

Lastly, as you choose to believe that those on welfare enjoy being on welfare, let me challenge you to go into the "projects" closest to your home. Get just 10 people to answer their doors. Of those who open their door to you, ask them if they enjoy living where they are and if not, why then, are they still living there. Unless they shoot you first, thinking you're looking for some way to evict them, you'll be very surprised how much their answers will contradict your beliefs.

Of course, I realize that you'd never partake in such a drastic adventure as that. But, unless you're willing to actually spend time, seeing what others go through, just to get by, day after day, you'll never change your misguided attitude.

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

So, when a conservative gets a taste of their own medicine, they run, crying to another conservative. In between sobs, the hurt conservative says, "The mean liberal is mistreating me by using the same language and tactics that I used against him. Everything I say, he uses against me! He uses shame and guilt against me. It hurts my feelings! It's not fair!" You two are hilarious!!!

Every one of the the leftist characteristics you attribute to me, I've had used against myself by conservatives who won't or can't present any rational thought behind their expounding of their party mantra; including what you posted above. It's the same made-up crap I've heard from you guys since time immemorial as well as ad nausium. It's no more applicative to me now as it was a then. Really, can't you come up with something new and different to insult me and my fellow liberals with?

I've always been willing and ready to an open and honest dialogue about the political differences between conservatives and liberals. Unfortunately, only a very few conserves can maintain their composure when I show them where and why their wrong in their beliefs. Their immediate reaction is a fake claim to take offense and accuse me of being closed-minded. Really!? I'm not seeing any indications that they, or you two, are trying to see anything from my point of view. But, you immediately expect me to acknowledge your position as more valid than mine. And, when I don't, you start attacking with your typical insults and belittling remarks. As such, why shouldn't I reciprocate with similar comments? After all, that's the only kind of conversation that conserves seem to want to have with anyone who dares contradict them.



For someone who says, "I think that anyone who follows party lines without thinking rationally about it is a fool," it should be pointed out to you that you're doing an extremely fine job of doing the very same thing. What's the old saying, "It takes one to know one?" It's very obvious that you're just as much a fool as you say I am. Thanks for the good laugh, Arch!!

----------
Sorry to make you wait. My son was injured at his work, today. He messed-up his left rotator cup and twisted his ankle. From the X-ray, he may have dislocated his left clavicle,too. I just got back from his house. Hence my tardiness in responding the you. My apologies.

To answer your question, in the United States, "'judicial review' is the ability of a court to examine and decide if a statute, treaty or administrative regulation contradicts or violates the provisions of existing law, a State Constitution, or ultimately the United States Constitution. While the U.S. Constitution does not explicitly define a power of judicial review, the authority for judicial review in the United States has been inferred from the structure, provisions, and history of the Constitution.

"Two landmark decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court served to confirm the inferred constitutional authority for judicial review in the United States: In 1796, Hylton v. United States was the first case decided by the Supreme Court involving a direct challenge to the constitutionality of an act of Congress, the Carriage Act of 1794 which imposed a "carriage tax". The Court engaged in the process of judicial review by examining the plaintiff's claim that the carriage tax was unconstitutional. After review, the Supreme Court decided the Carriage Act was not unconstitutional. In 1803, Marbury v. Madison was the first Supreme Court case where the Court asserted its authority for judicial review to strike down a law as unconstitutional. At the end of his opinion in this decision, Chief Justice John Marshall maintained that the Supreme Court's responsibility to overturn unconstitutional legislation was a necessary consequence of their sworn oath of office to uphold the Constitution as instructed in Article Six of the Constitution. As of 2014, the SCOTUS has upheld 176 acts of the US Congress as unConstitutional.

"Before the Constitutional Convention in 1787, the power of judicial review had been exercised in a number of states. In the years from 1776 to 1787, state courts in at least seven of the thirteen states had engaged in judicial review and had invalidated state statutes because they violated the state constitution or other higher law. These state courts treated state constitutions as statements of governing law to be interpreted and applied by judges. These courts reasoned that because their state constitution was the fundamental law of the state, they must apply the state constitution rather than an act of the legislature that was inconsistent with the state constitution.

"These state court cases involving judicial review were reported in the press and produced public discussion and comment. At least seven of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention, including Alexander Hamilton and Edmund Randolph, had personal experience with judicial review because they had been lawyers or judges in these state court cases involving judicial review. Other delegates referred to some of these state court cases during the debates at the Constitutional Convention. The concept of judicial review therefore was familiar to the framers and to the public before the Constitutional Convention.

"The Constitution does not expressly provide that the federal judiciary has the power of judicial review. Rather, the power to declare laws unconstitutional has been deemed an IMPLIED POWER, derived from Article III and Article VI.

"The provisions relating to the federal judicial power in Article III state:
'The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. . . . The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority. . . . In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.'

"The Supremacy Clause of Article VI states:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. . . . [A]ll executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution.”

"The power of judicial review has been implied from these provisions based on the following reasoning. It is the inherent duty of the courts to determine the applicable law in any given case. The Supremacy Clause says '[t]his Constitution' is the 'supreme law of the land.' The Constitution therefore is the fundamental law of the United States. Federal statutes are the law of the land only when they are "made in pursuance" of the Constitution. State constitutions and statutes are valid only if they are consistent with the Constitution. Any law contrary to the Constitution is void. The federal judicial power extends to all cases "arising under this Constitution." As part of their inherent duty to determine the law, the federal courts have the duty to interpret and apply the Constitution and to decide whether a federal or state statute conflicts with the Constitution. All judges are bound to follow the Constitution. If there is a conflict, the federal courts have a duty to follow the Constitution and to treat the conflicting statute as unenforceable. The Supreme Court has final appellate jurisdiction in all cases arising under the Constitution, so the Supreme Court has the ultimate authority to decide whether statutes are consistent with the Constitution."

You might, also, be interested in reading what Alexander Hamiltom thought of the SCOTUS and it's ability toward "judicial review."
"But it is not with a view to infractions of the Constitution only, that the independence of the judges may be an essential safeguard against the effects of occasional ill humors in the society. These sometimes extend no farther than to the injury of the private rights of particular classes of citizens, by unjust and partial laws. Here also the firmness of the judicial magistracy is of vast importance in mitigating the severity and confining the operation of such laws. It not only serves to moderate the immediate mischiefs of those which may have been passed, but it operates as a check upon the legislative body in passing them; who, perceiving that obstacles to the success of iniquitous intention are to be expected from the scruples of the courts, are in a manner compelled, by the very motives of the injustice they meditate, to qualify their attempts. This is a circumstance calculated to have more influence upon the character of our governments, than but few may be aware of."
Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 78"

And, if I may add, the "interpretation" of any written word is essential in applying the author's meaning(s) of the word(s) to a mental understanding by reader. Without "interpretation" the words are as meaningless as any other grouping of characters, written on whatever.

How do you interpret the Bible? In it, it's written to, "Love your neighbor." Does that mean that you go over to your neighbor's house and kiss and make out and have sex with your neighbor? Or, do you simply treat them as you'd like them to treat you? It's all in how one interprets the word, "love."

How do you interpret the directions on a bottle of a mixture that reads, "Shake well before using?" Do you shake the bottle or do you put the bottle down and shake your own body? Either way, you've done what was written on the bottle. But, how did you "interpret" the meaning of the directions, the words?

It's very obvious you're scrapping the bottom of your barrel to try to trap me. Give it up, Archie. It ain't happening. Your arguments have no basis in the reasoning you claim to use. If you did use reasoning, you would've already seen the falacy of your question.

The Constitution is a written document. It's made up of words. The words are grouped into sentences and paragraphs. The structure and alignment of the sentences are so one can interpret their collective meanings. Your argument isn't against the SCOTUS and its ability to "interpret" the Constitution. Your argument is based in the fact that the SCOTUS isn't interpreting the Constitution as you want it to. Again, if you can't win by playing within the rules, you want to change the rules.

FYI - Political Science, with an emphasis in Constitutional law, was one of my minors in college. Admittedly, much of what I posted, here, I copied from the Wikipedia. I used quotes around the paragraphs that I copied. I used Wikepedia because I wanted to demonstrate to you how easy it is to find out the answer to your question regarding the SCOTUS and its ability to "interpret" the Constitution. Besides, I'm not going to go through all my old notes from college when Wikipedia is just a click away and it says, essentially the same thing that are in my notes. You should try it sometime; research, that is.

----------
Sorry to make you wait. My son was injured at his work, today. He messed-up his left rotator cup and twisted his ankle. From the X-ray, he may have dislocated his left clavicle,too. I just got back from his house. Hence my tardiness in responding the you. My apologies.

To answer your question, in the United States, "'judicial review' is the ability of a court to examine and decide if a statute, treaty or administrative regulation contradicts or violates the provisions of existing law, a State Constitution, or ultimately the United States Constitution. While the U.S. Constitution does not explicitly define a power of judicial review, the authority for judicial review in the United States has been inferred from the structure, provisions, and history of the Constitution.

"Two landmark decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court served to confirm the inferred constitutional authority for judicial review in the United States: In 1796, Hylton v. United States was the first case decided by the Supreme Court involving a direct challenge to the constitutionality of an act of Congress, the Carriage Act of 1794 which imposed a "carriage tax". The Court engaged in the process of judicial review by examining the plaintiff's claim that the carriage tax was unconstitutional. After review, the Supreme Court decided the Carriage Act was not unconstitutional. In 1803, Marbury v. Madison was the first Supreme Court case where the Court asserted its authority for judicial review to strike down a law as unconstitutional. At the end of his opinion in this decision, Chief Justice John Marshall maintained that the Supreme Court's responsibility to overturn unconstitutional legislation was a necessary consequence of their sworn oath of office to uphold the Constitution as instructed in Article Six of the Constitution. As of 2014, the SCOTUS has upheld 176 acts of the US Congress as unConstitutional.

"Before the Constitutional Convention in 1787, the power of judicial review had been exercised in a number of states. In the years from 1776 to 1787, state courts in at least seven of the thirteen states had engaged in judicial review and had invalidated state statutes because they violated the state constitution or other higher law. These state courts treated state constitutions as statements of governing law to be interpreted and applied by judges. These courts reasoned that because their state constitution was the fundamental law of the state, they must apply the state constitution rather than an act of the legislature that was inconsistent with the state constitution.

"These state court cases involving judicial review were reported in the press and produced public discussion and comment. At least seven of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention, including Alexander Hamilton and Edmund Randolph, had personal experience with judicial review because they had been lawyers or judges in these state court cases involving judicial review. Other delegates referred to some of these state court cases during the debates at the Constitutional Convention. The concept of judicial review therefore was familiar to the framers and to the public before the Constitutional Convention.

"The Constitution does not expressly provide that the federal judiciary has the power of judicial review. Rather, the power to declare laws unconstitutional has been deemed an IMPLIED POWER, derived from Article III and Article VI.

"The provisions relating to the federal judicial power in Article III state:
'The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. . . . The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority. . . . In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.'

"The Supremacy Clause of Article VI states:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. . . . [A]ll executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution.”

"The power of judicial review has been implied from these provisions based on the following reasoning. It is the inherent duty of the courts to determine the applicable law in any given case. The Supremacy Clause says '[t]his Constitution' is the 'supreme law of the land.' The Constitution therefore is the fundamental law of the United States. Federal statutes are the law of the land only when they are "made in pursuance" of the Constitution. State constitutions and statutes are valid only if they are consistent with the Constitution. Any law contrary to the Constitution is void. The federal judicial power extends to all cases "arising under this Constitution." As part of their inherent duty to determine the law, the federal courts have the duty to interpret and apply the Constitution and to decide whether a federal or state statute conflicts with the Constitution. All judges are bound to follow the Constitution. If there is a conflict, the federal courts have a duty to follow the Constitution and to treat the conflicting statute as unenforceable. The Supreme Court has final appellate jurisdiction in all cases arising under the Constitution, so the Supreme Court has the ultimate authority to decide whether statutes are consistent with the Constitution."

You might, also, be interested in reading what Alexander Hamiltom thought of the SCOTUS and it's ability toward "judicial review."
"But it is not with a view to infractions of the Constitution only, that the independence of the judges may be an essential safeguard against the effects of occasional ill humors in the society. These sometimes extend no farther than to the injury of the private rights of particular classes of citizens, by unjust and partial laws. Here also the firmness of the judicial magistracy is of vast importance in mitigating the severity and confining the operation of such laws. It not only serves to moderate the immediate mischiefs of those which may have been passed, but it operates as a check upon the legislative body in passing them; who, perceiving that obstacles to the success of iniquitous intention are to be expected from the scruples of the courts, are in a manner compelled, by the very motives of the injustice they meditate, to qualify their attempts. This is a circumstance calculated to have more influence upon the character of our governments, than but few may be aware of."
Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 78"

And, if I may add, the "interpretation" of any written word is essential in applying the author's meaning(s) of the word(s) to a mental understanding by reader. Without "interpretation" the words are as meaningless as any other grouping of characters, written on whatever.

How do you interpret the Bible? In it, it's written to, "Love your neighbor." Does that mean that you go over to your neighbor's house and kiss and make out and have sex with your neighbor? Or, do you simply treat them as you'd like them to treat you? It's all in how one interprets the word, "love."

How do you interpret the directions on a bottle of a mixture that reads, "Shake well before using?" Do you shake the bottle or do you put the bottle down and shake your own body? Either way, you've done what was written on the bottle. But, how did you "interpret" the meaning of the directions, the words?

It's very obvious you're scrapping the bottom of your barrel to try to trap me. Give it up, Archie. It ain't happening. Your arguments have no basis in the reasoning you claim to use. If you did use reasoning, you would've already seen the falacy of your question.

The Constitution is a written document. It's made up of words. The words are grouped into sentences and paragraphs. The structure and alignment of the sentences are so one can interpret their collective meanings. Your argument isn't against the SCOTUS and its ability to "interpret" the Constitution. Your argument is based in the fact that the SCOTUS isn't interpreting the Constitution as you want it to. Again, if you can't win by playing within the rules, you want to change the rules.

FYI - Political Science, with an emphasis in Constitutional law, was one of my minors in college. Admittedly, much of what I posted, here, I copied from the Wikipedia. I used quotes around the paragraphs that I copied. I used Wikepedia because I wanted to demonstrate to you how easy it is to find out the answer to your question regarding the SCOTUS and its ability to "interpret" the Constitution. Besides, I'm not going to go through all my old notes from college when Wikipedia is just a click away and it says, essentially the same thing that are in my notes. You should try it sometime; research, that is.

working class stiff wrote:
In dealing with the folks on OPP main for more than a year I've learned a few things. I have a certain amount of respect for conservative thinking as I am fairly conservative in my own circumstances: I abhor debt, think folks should earn their own way, think that rights come with responsibilities, etc.

Some of the things I've learned:

-some conservatives are extremely racist and proud of it. Most others seem to tolerate that as 'free speech'.
- some are intolerant of different points of view.
-some are prone to verbal violence when challenged.
-some know only the history of their country that confirms their already held beliefs.
-they are afraid of the future and change.
-their hatred of the President colors every idea, whether the President has anything to do with the issue or not.

The list is longer, but that is enough for now. It seems that conservatives have no tolerance for the complexity and ambiguity that comes with living. They call it having a moral compass, whereas progressives are moral relativists. THat must make life very hard for them because we live in a revolutionary society and age. The US has always been an agent of change and revolution, and overturned the cherished notions of the old guard. Perhaps that is why conservatives seem so bitter:

they are constantly railing and fighting against forces that the cannot change and cannot defeat.

If they weren't so mean and angry, I'd almost feel sorry for them.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Do you think by being polite here it dismisses you doing the very thing you profess the "conservatives are doing?' I find it hypocritical in context...The very same things you bring up are as self evident in any number of posts by the left as well..

We all argue passion of the topics and should not be looking to attack the poster regardless of "supposed party affiliation", which is a joke to begin with..The only party there is, is government against the citizens that put them in office..Once there they join the "elitist class, we are their slaves" bound by the ridiculous, irresponsible things they do or better yet do not do..

We are as valuable to them as our money they steal and our vote they also rig..This campaign election proving ever so much the people are fed up with the lies of both parties...

Rather than sling mud why not stand above it all and speak your passion of the topic and leave the rest you complain about out it??? I know, its difficult for us to remain civil when being attacked isn't it?????

Short answer: I don't know.

I have had a long running private message exchange with one conservative member that I truly enjoyed. No name calling, no hostility, etc. You and I have had civil exchanges.

I certainly don't think that all conservatives are wrong or bad folks. My family is conservative and we get along. Could be the nature of a public forum on the internet.

I know not all progressives are smart or tolerant. That's why I like a little ambiguity in discussions. But sometimes the hostility becomes too much on the main board. One thing that hostility does is make me think about my own views, and I know in my heart that American progressives are not as portrayed on the main board and sometimes it just feels good to say so without running into some of the posters who would say we are evil, or anti-American.

I hope to continue having civil discussions with any conservative who would like to....just not sure it's possible on the big board.

In dealing with the folks on OPP main for more than a year I've learned a few things. I have a certain amount of respect for conservative thinking as I am fairly conservative in my own circumstances: I abhor debt, think folks should earn their own way, think that rights come with responsibilities, etc.

Some of the things I've learned:

-some conservatives are extremely racist and proud of it. Most others seem to tolerate that as 'free speech'.
- some are intolerant of different points of view.
-some are prone to verbal violence when challenged.
-some know only the history of their country that confirms their already held beliefs.
-they are afraid of the future and change.
-their hatred of the President colors every idea, whether the President has anything to do with the issue or not.

The list is longer, but that is enough for now. It seems that conservatives have no tolerance for the complexity and ambiguity that comes with living. They call it having a moral compass, whereas progressives are moral relativists. THat must make life very hard for them because we live in a revolutionary society and age. The US has always been an agent of change and revolution, and overturned the cherished notions of the old guard. Perhaps that is why conservatives seem so bitter:

they are constantly railing and fighting against forces that the cannot change and cannot defeat.

If they weren't so mean and angry, I'd almost feel sorry for them.