Dave wrote:
"The constitution doesn't specify federal authority - it limits that authority" That statement is inherently internally contradictory. The entire purpose of the Constitution was to create the federal government and specifically define what authority it had. If you don't understand that, you understand nothing about the founding document of this country and its purpose.
As to the idea that laws are based on religion is foolish - they are based on right or wrong. There is but one clear example that the Constitution has a religious element - and that is that all rights are endowed to the individual - by the Creator. In other words, it does depend on the believe of individual rights, and that the only power the government has is that which is granted it by the people -
I'm guessing you are one of those secular progressives who believe there is no right or wrong, that society creates a set of ethics that mother nature doesn't. I guess, in one sense, that is true. We could all live by the laws of natural se******n - where only nature determines what is right or wrong.
"The constitution doesn't specify federal aut... (
show quote)
Dave, we're way, way past the time when we can let Mama Nature make the rules. If mankind doesn't start living by rational rules, we're going to become just another major population of the earth that gets discovered/dug up by some future creatures who will speculate about our intelligence.
Consider the looming population problem and its' connection to g****l w*****g/pollution. During the 20th century world population has gone from 1.65 to 6 billion - we've doubled human numbers since 1970! Now we're pushing 8 billion!! Feeding, clothing and housing that many is beginning to upset global ecology, and attempts to rein in population growth are being stoutly resisted by a variety of religious beliefs.
Maybe train several thousand women to install IUDs. T***sport, pay and supply these gals at government expense and abort+sterilize any woman becoming pregnant for a third time. China implemented a birth control program several years ago and is now beginning to reap some benefit from it.
C'mon Dave - think long term, think big. The world is large, but there is a limit to its' capacity to support us - especially when we're messing up ecology on a global basis. I'd just as soon not have to fret about the oxygen content of the air my greatgrandkids will have to breath!
Raylan Wolfe wrote:
Another r****ded comment from an uneducated Trump supporter!
Intelligent people know that b****s are not more r****t than w****s! It is a myth that only r****t bigots believe!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/reverse-r****m-isnt-a-thing_us_55d60a91e4b07addcb45da97
I dunno, Raylan - writing sensible things to the well propagandized ignoramus crowd merely seems to make them stupider. It appears the GOP race is driven by white ethno-nationalism fears, and I'm sure you're aware that fear destroys rationality.
oldroy wrote:
Lets see now. Muslims, even here are wanting Sharia to govern here as they are nearly doing in the UK. Once they outnumber we of the European bent won't they be able to outv**e us? We have seen examples of this very thing in schools here and that sounds like we are nearly there.
roy - it takes time! The thoroughly indoctrinated immigrant has children who grow up exposed to a less doctrinal way of thinking, but put on a lifelong show for their parents. The grandchildren of those immigrants become far less involved in religious indoctrination - their beliefs get influenced by the society surrounding them.
Consider this - large numbers of Catholic believers immigrated to this country in the late 1800s, early 1900s. The Catholic churches in those days were filled to overflowing, but today have lots of empty pews. The gradual shift to knowledge-based behavior takes time. Git it?
erniebanks14 wrote:
Scalin was k**led for one reason. If Obama gets to pick his replacement we will not have another e******n.
ernie - PLEASE, try to get your imagination under control!!
eagleye13 wrote:
Some things to consider in the video.
NO autopsy.
Mighty convenient.
AND Neal just wants to ignore all the inconsistencies of who traveled as Scalia's "protectors"
Neal; you might want to read up on the cover up of the JFK assassination, including the autopsy.
This cover up is real fresh.
eagle - go back and make a careful study of Scalia's medical history. Not only is there ample evidence supporting heart problems, the postmortem examination showed evidence of circulatory shutdown - just what one expects from heart attack. Postmortem examination by a competent physician would show indications of death by asphyxiation or poisoning.
Do you really believe such evidence would not have led to a much more thorough investigation of cause of death?
Dave wrote:
You have an interesting take - fetus is but another organ in the human body - and an even more interesting take on the Constitution.
The constitution quite specifically prohibits everything at the federal level that is not clearly authorized in it as a function of the federal government. Religion has nothing to do with it. The will of the people has everything to do with it. That is why the will of the people is the supreme law unless the Constitution specifically grants the federal government authority. The word a******n appears no where in the constitution - therefore the people, through their legislatures, can enact laws for or against it.
If you think the Constitution grants the court the authority to decide an issue, can you cite the wording that does that? Or maybe you object to the idea that the Constitution authorizes specifically any and all federal authority?
You have an interesting take - fetus is but anothe... (
show quote)
The constitution doesn't specify federal authority - it limits that authority. There is absolutely no authority to limit an individual's right to do as they will with their own body. Those limitations have always been made as a sop to the religious - a set of laws designed not to better the lives of people, but to earn the v**es of the believers.
Raylan Wolfe wrote:
The social conditions that are driving the uneducated v**ers to Trump also explains the rise of f*****t leaders such as Adolf Hitler!
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/02/chomsky-trumps-rise-fueled-by-same-societal-breakdown-that-birthed-hitler/
Well Ray, I lived in Germany from 1945 to '49. Learned pretty good German and had lots of discussions about the F*****t movement with a German general who retired shortly after Hitler came to power. He retired because he detested F*****t ideology, and taught me quite a bit about it - one of his favorite subjects.
And yep, the prattle of the far right in this country has a distinctly f*****t ring to it. My facility with Deutshsprach has pretty much gone to hell over the years, but maybe I should move back . . . ?
Sheeesh! There's always a worrywart to paint a black future . . .
eagleye13 wrote:
Why Did They K**l Justice Scalia?
http://youtu.be/nfny3UH6Kcs
Jesus, eagle :!: :!: Seems you're ready to believe the ravings on youtube produced by a Harlem preacher from a polarizing and highly controversial Missionary Baptist church.
Accepting as factual the ridiculous nonsense one can find on youtube suggests that your thinking apparatus is way past its condemnation date.
oldroy wrote:
It is sad to find out this answer but Muslim children outnumber British children in the UK. Keep hauling them in, Obama. Maybe before your death they can say the same thing about white and black people in the US. I guess we will have to use Hispanics to outnumber the Muslims if Obama gets his way and keeps importing them.
Read in this article what junior high kids were assigned to do and wonder if that teacher is still there.
http://freedomoutpost.com/british-childrens-homework-assignment-convert-to-islam/
It is sad to find out this answer but Muslim child... (
show quote)
Well roy, there aren't as many i***ts in Britain screaming against the horrors of a******n and efficient contraception like we have here. It takes a while for the religiously inculcated to learn these rational things - just like in this country. Be patient my friend - soon the Muslim population will become aware of the idiocy of religious belief . . . like we're slowly learning it here!
Dave wrote:
You have an interesting take - fetus is but another organ in the human body - and an even more interesting take on the Constitution.
The constitution quite specifically prohibits everything at the federal level that is not clearly authorized in it as a function of the federal government. Religion has nothing to do with it. The will of the people has everything to do with it. That is why the will of the people is the supreme law unless the Constitution specifically grants the federal government authority. The word a******n appears no where in the constitution - therefore the people, through their legislatures, can enact laws for or against it.
If you think the Constitution grants the court the authority to decide an issue, can you cite the wording that does that? Or maybe you object to the idea that the Constitution authorizes specifically any and all federal authority?
You have an interesting take - fetus is but anothe... (
show quote)
Constitution of the United States - Amendment 1, 1st line: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, . . ."
Anti-a******n laws are established on the religious belief that "human life is sacred". I have pointed out the basis for this statement as unsupported by rational fact, i.e. this idea is purely a religious belief, therefore, anti-a******n laws result from the persistent attempts by religious believers to saddle the general populace with their religious belief. Roe v Wade recognized these laws as unconstitutional.
Consider a law that required each adult citizen to go to confession each week and tell a priest all the naughty things they did in the last week. This too would be a law 'respecting an establishment of religion'.
I truly can't understand where the religion-based argument against Roe
makes a grain of sense. I do understand, however, that being born and raised in a religious environment can immunize a person to rational appeals that contravene those teachings.
Dave wrote:
You are making a different argument - the Constitution does not require nor ban the making of a law on a******n - it states that where it is silent it isn't a federal issue.
One can argue that a fetus is nothing more than another organ, or that is is a sacred life form and pass laws allowing or disallowing the cessation of a fetus existence - at either the federal of state levels. No matter how you define a fetus, however, does not authorize the courts to intervene - interestingly enough unless you define the fetus as life - it is therefore constitutionally protected. If you want to argue it isn't life, then legislative action on either pro or anti a******n is constitutional. That is what Bork said. He may or may not have been pro choice or pro life - he was clear however that neither position was a matter for the courts.
You are making a different argument - the Constitu... (
show quote)
Of course I define a fetus as life - I also define my liver, appendix, etc., as life. The idea that human life is sacred is a religious idea. The constitution quite specifically prohibits lawmaking in support of religious beliefs. Strikes me as totally rational that laws forbidding a******n do not pass constitutional muster. I really don't understand the counterarguments.
Dave wrote:
The one big and consistent one going back to the day of Bork - a******n. From my personal perspective I am neither for or against a******n, but it seems the Democrats have elevated the issue to almost a religious sacrament. Bork's position on Roe v. Wade was that the constitution was silent on the subject - neither allowing or banning the practice. From that and the 10th Amendment he considered that any state, or even the federal legislature could allow or ban it, and the court had no proper role on either side of that issue. From that he was slandered as being some sort of religious nut trying to force his opinion on women.
They then tried to get his to affirm that once the Supreme Court decided a case in a particular way, like Rove v. Wade, all future courts were bound to hold the same way. Near law school failures like Ted Kennedy and Joe Biden were taught a simple lesson by this very distinguished legal scholar - pointing to the Dred Scott decision that legalized s***ery as clearly an example of a reversible decision. From that they accused him of being a radical, ready to over turn each and every decision every made by earlier courts. In simple terms, they allowed their devotion to a******n to change the game forever - qualifications no longer were the deciding factor in confirmations, but political ideology ruled. That Democrat tradition existed up to the current President, who while still a Senator filibustered Alito and v**ed against Roberts - while admitting both were eminently qualified.
By the way, one of the interesting footnotes to this - perhaps the most liberal judge on the Supreme Court not too long ago opined that the Court made a major error in this case - that had it stayed out of the fray a******ns would almost certainly been legalized by legislatures and the still simmering resentment of its opponents would have been far more subdued.
The one big and consistent one going back to the d... (
show quote)
Well Dave, you and Bork are certainly correct that the constitution is silent on the matter of a******n. That document does, however, forbid the making law based in religious belief. Visit any Planned Parenthood clinic currently sporting a collection of protesters, and you'll surely see at least one sign announcing that: HUMAN LIFE IS SACRED!
A human zygote, embryoblast, embryo or fetus are certainly examples of human life, but so is your liver, brain, heart . . . If you were unfortunate enough to develop appendicitis, would you refuse the removal of that appendix because human life is sacred?
I hold that the life of a human being may be sacred, but a fetus is not a human being - it hasn't yet started being. You can't see that fetus, it makes no sound, it doesn't eat or drink, pee or poop, it doesn't even breath! In short, it ain't a being yet.
Should one choose to BELIEVE that fetus is a human being, they express what is essentially a religious belief - not a demonstrable fact. It's a matter of logic - that fetus might someday be a human being, and a big pile of lumber might someday be a house. Treating a thing for what it might become defies logic. Git it?
saltwind 78 wrote:
Neal, These are some Democratic litmus test items and qualifications.
1. an appropriate judicial temperament
2. A thorough knowledge of the law
3. A distinguished reputation for honesty
4. A determination to protect the rights and e******y of all before the law, including women and all minorities.
I think that about covers it. I would expect a potential justice nominated by a Democratic President to be a loose constructionist, and liberal in his or her political ideology.
That covers the appropriate rules pretty well, salty. Of course the determination of what constitutes an "appropriate judicial temperament" leaves lots of room for the ideologically twisted.
Owl32 wrote:
these dems think we all have dementia, that we donot remember. everytime they claim the Republicans are trying to destroy Social Security, when we know the dems are the ones who stole the bank, put it in general revenue fund (LBJ's crime). Then they removed the individual retirement accts and started calling it a entitlement! The same as welfare! Again BULLS**T!!!!!
Well Owl, another irrefutable demonstration that, for Republicans, ideology trumps reason and law.