 |
The paranormal forum is about trying to help people with such things as they may experience and to examine the issues as they are presented. Most of the time an explination can be found that is perfectly normal. So I wouldn't go around condemining people for posting there or trying to help others. There are many belief systems around and as with paranormal it should be respected until all the evidence is in.Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
I don't post there, because I believe they are all crackpots... and no disrespect... but I don't HAVE to believe any of that stuff absent any proof to the contrary. Its really no different than an adult believing the Easter Bunny, unicorns or Tooth Fairy are real... I don't need proof they don't exist... and I don't have to believe they do absent irrefutable evidence they do. For the record people that believe in alien abduction tend to have substance abuse issues... poor educations... and for some reason usually tend to live in trailer parks. You would think if aliens were coming here and had the technology to come here... they would be able to pick people that don't live in trailer parks, or at least pick a more diverse selection of subjects.Quote:
Originally Posted by cdad
There is ALWAYS a reasonable and rational explanation for everything they think they see or hear. I however don't have the patience to get them to see it... that's one of the reasons I never studied to be a mental healthcare professional OR a therapist. Besides not having any interest in that field.
GREENIEQuote:
Originally Posted by cdad
And thanks Smoothy for knowing your limit.
Talking sense to a Liberal is like beating your head against a wooden wall... trying to convince that other group is like beating it against a huge chunk of granite.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
I'm hard headed but not enough to break granite.
Are you admitting too beating you head against a wall? :D I am sure its covered under Obama Care :D Is this pre exiting condition? :D
Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Exactly, I couldn't agree more Tal. What is the use of smoothy posting a number of links if he doesn't provide his interpretation to go with it. What you say about SCOTUS is also correct.
The 9 Amendment was put in because it was an important reference to natural rights as opposed to civil rights. This is it talks about the people those rights not specifically specified in the Constitution. Why?
Because it would be impossible to codify natural rights in the form of legislation. Why? Because natural rights are unwritten so this makes the task impossible.For this reason natural rights have to be determined by SCOTUS. In other words,their depth, scope and relevance to civil laws is determined by nine judges.
Despite what some people might think civil rights can be taken away, but more often than not SCOTUS modifies them in accordance with their particular interpretation. This is why there are so many complaint about SCOTUS implementing legislation from the bench. The reason people complain about this is because this is exactly what SCOTUS does.
An example I have used before is freedom of speech and I can use it to demonstrate this point. Freedom of speech is often regarded as a natural right. The argument is often granted on the basis that freedom of speech existed in a state of nature. That is to say, prior to there being a organized society to grant that particular freedom. Being a natural right freedom of speech should be all pervasive throughout society. But it isn't. There have been many interpretations and modifications by SCOTUS on the exact definition and prescription of freedom of speech.
Citizens United decision being a good example. Freedom of speech applies to corporations despite the fact that corporations could not have possibly existed prior to their being an organized society.
So no, the Constitution is not set in stone. SCOTUS wields the hammer and chisel in many different ways.
There is no way that the founders envisioned a small group of unelected ,appointed for life demigods determining our rights and the scope of those rights. Perhaps the problem is that the early SCOTUS had an average tenure of somewhere around 8 years . The current court sits until they develop moss on their butts and cobwebs in their brains... average tenure 27 years . It's time to term limit them and reinstitute the restraints on the court envisioned by the founders.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
I'm with you all the way on that one.
Yes Tom there should be limits placed on their tenure just as there is on the legislature and the presidentancy. Perhaps they should face election rather than being appointed. This meens of course that those reps and senators would not only face election but have a truly limited term. This might focus them on actually getting something done without stuffing it upQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Actually it is anything but simple. My post was in reference to natural rights, natural laws and civil laws. I am not sure that anyone can come up with a simple explanation of these things. If you can I would like to hear it.Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
My post 266 makes some attempt, if you would like to read it.
Tutt you can debate rights with these fellows forever. They see their Bill of Rights as sacrosanct, some sort of expression of natural rights but in fact it is a civil law. There are some things that are not part of it which should be and that is the natural right to have equal right to care and equal right to protection from the excesses of their neighbours. They see their Court as offering such protections, but in fact, it enshrines the thoughts of thinkers two hundred years ago and is as far removed from today as the Moon is from the Earth. That was a day in which men defended themselves and did not expect government to do it. Those men did not contemplate the ursurping of the power of the legislature as we have recently witnessedQuote:
Originally Posted by Tuttyd
Hello T:
I'm a simple guy, so my explanations are simple too.Quote:
I am not sure that anyone can come up with a simple explanation of these things. If you can I would like to hear it.
Let's take gay marriage... It IS a natural right for people to get married... All these laws do is EXPAND those rights. When people ask me WHERE in the Constitution can they find the right for gays to get married, I direct them to the 9th Amendment...
Pretty simple, huh?
excon
I would argue that making SCOTUS term limited and election bound would create the very same dynamic we have in the legislature, the power of the monied interest influencing the courts, and the need to campaign. And lets not forget the process it takes through the lower court before it even gets to the highest court in the land.
Lets not also not forget the legislatures ability, despite the power of SCOTUS, to modify and change and limit the impact of any ruling SCOTUS makes which for whatever reason seems to be extra hard through the divided governance we now have. I think striking down parts of the voting rights act is an example of this that has basically exonerated states for past wrongs and reset the stage for them to be challenged anew for that which they had already lost in courts repeatedly.
The subject of natural rights has always been addressed in civil law, in most countries around the world and we are still trying to separate those rights and define them and their limits. After all if everyone has the same rights it should follow that individual rights have no conflict between its citizens but that's not the case certainly not when it comes to a churches rights, gay marriage, or even POT. Indeed what we have is what was law before has been changed over time as attitudes for/against them have changed. So its subjective to whatever the will of the people is at the time.
There are no absolutes in any society I don't think and much has to do with what the peoples ideas and attitude about rights and how they work for them and present them through the court system is really the determining faction but who writes what laws is the biggest influence on direction of the country more so even than the influence of the courts. I submit the current conflict of the ACA implementation as a very clear picture of how a divided government and states having the power to choose there own course of action in enacting and embracing a law and shaping the policy behind it.
Its been human nature to assume what the natural rights are and then trying to right them down as simple and absolute, but in reality, is neither. Not only are natural rights complex and flowing, and subject to human flaws when applied.
I mean when the constitution gave all men being equal as the foundation, it obvious it wasn't meaning all men. And that's what made natural rights subjective to who is interpreting it. Some obviously have more natural rights than others, and nobody is equal without the power
To enforce it. That dynamic existed 200 years ago, and exists NOW.
The legislature did no such usurpation. If anything it was the emperor who has constantly violated his role in the 5 years of his reignQuote:
Those men did not contemplate the ursurping of the power of the legislature as we have recently witnessed
We have a checks and balances in our form of government and all you need are the votes to do whatever needs to be done. You aren't the first minority to not have enough votes, and that can change every two years in America. And you can always go to court and proceed that way.
Our whole history is about courts and elections and a changing electorate. Indeed the evidence points to the need for more participation during the midterms as in the general elections every 4 years for president.
With this I disagree. I beleive they actually did make provisions for this and that is the very reason the second amendment exists. It is to provide a way for the people to have an ultimate choice.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
I did not call for judicial elections . But I am a strong advocate of changing the constitution to term limit both the court and Congress .Quote:
would argue that making SCOTUS term limited and election bound would create the very same dynamic we have in the legislature, the power of the monied interest influencing the courts, and the need to campaign. And lets not forget the process it takes through the lower court before it even gets to the highest court in the land.
Even what I call term limits would be modified in that I would subject them to reappointment after a fixed period ,subject to the same ruled of appointment as is now in the Constitution (executive appointment and advise and consent of Senate ).Let the judges who is reappointed defend their decisions . Judges now are too evasive and not candid in the Q&A Senate hearings .They give vague answers and dodge questions that would give someone an insight into how they'll vote. That's got to end . There has to be an accountability for the decisions they make.
I'd give the legislature greater power to over-rule SCOTUS decisions by subjecting SCOTUS decisions to super majority veto by both houses of Congress OR by 2/3 of the State legislatures.. That goes back to my basic disagreement with the Marbury decision. SCOTUS was never given the power to be the final arbiter .Quote:
Lets not also not forget the legislatures ability, despite the power of SCOTUS, to modify and change and limit the impact of any ruling SCOTUS makes which for whatever reason seems to be extra hard through the divided governance we now have. I think striking down parts of the voting rights act is an example of this that has basically exonerated states for past wrongs and reset the stage for them to be challenged anew for that which they had already lost in courts repeatedly.
I agree to disagree, SCOTUS is only supposed to strike down laws that it deems to run afoul of the Constitution. However, the process also leaves the Court open to interpret the Constitution,and that is a recipe for corruption and abuse... and indeed it has abused its power on many occasions. What concerns me is there are too many people like Professor Robin West of Georgetown who openly advocates ,and teaches young law students that :we need aprogressive jurisprudence—a jurisprudence that embraces rather than resists, and then reinterprets, our liberal commitment to the ‘rule of law,’ the content of our individual rights, and the dream of formal equality. More inclusive interpretations—more generous reimaginings—could then undergird, and in a principled way, particular constitutional arguments. Rather than relentlessly buck, deconstruct, and vilify the seeming ‘naturalness’ of legal arguments based on moral premises, we ought to be providing such premises, and natural and general arguments of our own.Quote:
Originally Posted by cdad
http://scholarship.law.georgetown.ed...context=facpub
Hello again,
While I agree about the unelected oligarchs, if we elected them, or term limited them, they would be DISARMED as the 3rd, and CO-EQUAL branch of the government..
As much as I dislike some of their decisions, I KNOW I'll dislike the ones the states'll make a whole lot more. In fact, I believe it's the ONLY institution holding this nation together.. If states can vote on who has rights and who doesn't, I believe the SOUTH would revert to its segregationist ways, and foment a 2nd civil war.
excon
Lol SOCTUS' Dredd Scott decision is the single biggest cause of the civil war.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:10 AM. |