Then they should have told their congressmen to vote no, but you know that's not what I'm referring to.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
|
Then they should have told their congressmen to vote no, but you know that's not what I'm referring to.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
It matters not what the citizens tell their congressmen to do, they will do the bidding of whoever pays them the most.
So what is your excuse for ignoring me? My evidence not convincing enough?Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
I don't think the truth of that is known south of the Canadian borderQuote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Not ignoring you... and nope your evidence isn't convincing enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuttyd
Anyone can post anything on the internet... doesn't make it factual.
Google up Alien Abduction sometime... see what I mean. Look at how many people blieve in Bigfoot, the Abominable snowman.. etc.
Hell, just look at the Paranormal forum.......lots of people there in need of medications to stop the things they are seeing and voices in their heads.
And the point goes right over your head.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
It might. Explain the point for us please.Quote:
And the point goes right over your head.
The vote on both wars was passed with strong bipartisan support, it was never all Bush's fault, he sought congressional approval and got it.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
How does that prove that I missed the point about the pointlessness of citizens trying to get their congressmen to vote a certain way? That political vote you speak of had nothing to do with what US citizens wanted.
Nothing at all really, again you missed the point.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
And you're totally missing/avoiding mine.
One day you will realize that your venting is a total waste of time due to your loss of control of the people you elect.
Oh I got your point, it was irrelevant to mine.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Yet it's more important.
Moving on, it seems some on the left are admitting to reality - and no I'm not talking about Dems calling for a delay in the mandate.
Comments?Quote:
Blame Liberals for Obama’s Illegal Drone War
The advocacy groups Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch are accusing the administration of U.S. President Barack Obama of possible war crimes for drone strike campaigns in Pakistan and Yemen. These charges won’t have much weight within the U.S. -- after all, even Hollywood now portrays the way we tortured detainees, and no one has been held to account.
But the reports presage what will probably become history’s verdict on drone strikes taking place off the battlefield in weak states: bad for human rights, bad for the rule of law -- and bad for U.S. interests in the fight against terrorism.
There will be plenty of blame to go around, yet I can’t escape the gnawing feeling that people like me -- legal critics of the George W. Bush administration’s detention policy -- bear some moral responsibility for creating incentives for the Obama administration to kill rather than capture. True, we didn’t realize that condemning interrogation practices and quasi-lawless detention at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, would lead a Democratic president to break new ground in unfettered presidential authority. But that’s just the point: We should have seen it coming. And we didn’t.
**************
Although the tactical appeal of drone strikes is significant, it doesn’t fully explain the Obama administration’s preference for them. Part of the policy choice resulted from the practical impossibility for the president of doing anything with al-Qaeda-linked terrorists if they should be captured. Having pledged to close the prison at Guantanamo during the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama could hardly add detainees there. But why had Obama come out against Guantanamo in the first place?
The answer had everything to do with legally inflected criticisms of detention as practiced by the Bush administration. You remember the tune: There was no clear legal authority to hold detainees. Harsh interrogation tactics violated domestic and international law. Guantanamo itself was a legal black hole, chosen because it wasn’t inside the U.S., but also (according to the U.S.) wasn’t under Cuban sovereignty because of a disputed 100-year-old treaty.
Reasonable Criticisms
When people including myself made these criticisms to reasonable people in the Bush administration -- yes, there were reasonable people there, such as Matthew Waxman, who worked in both the State and Defense departments, and Jack Goldsmith, of the Office of Legal Counsel (and now my colleague at Harvard Law School) -- we got a pretty consistent answer. Look, they said, detention is problematic, but it is better than just killing people!
These Bush administration moderates pointed out that in choosing military targets, mistakes were sometimes made -- collateral damage was even accepted under international law. Detention, too, might involve errors, but it was necessary as an alternative to shooting first and asking questions later.
For what it is worth, I would strongly with the OP.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
I am not talking about alien abduction and the like. I am talking about stuff like this that you post:Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
"As far as the Bill of Rights is concerned...Natural rights and legal rights are one and the same. They trump any legal statute( meaning you can't write a law that does away with enumerated rights)..we are discussing the Bill of Rights not the legal code of the country."
My reply was that if they are in fact one and the same you must also be discussing the legal code of the country as well. This is because you are telling us that, "All x's are x's. After telling us this you then revert to a claim that there is actually a distinction.This is obviously a contradiction.
This logic not convincing enough? Perhaps you can tell my why.
This is the type of stuff I am talking about.
Its simple.. our Constitution isn't written in pencil like so many others are... including your own.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuttyd
The President can't change it... Congress can't even change it on their own... it has to be ratified by 3/4 of the states.
If a very LARGE percentage of thje population decides it's a right... then it can be made one if it isn't already... and that has to be at least 3/4 of the population.
Constitutional Amendment Process
Laws can be repealed just as easily as they can be made... mental midgets such as Obama can't simply make a proclimation that is so... and make it so..
Obama care for example isn't a "right"....it doesn't have majority support...it was rammed through without a proper vote...and it will never get the 75% required to make it a legal RIGHT......and since it won't it can be very easily repealed.
Hello smoothy, Mr. Constitutionalist:
Tell me, kind Sir, what are my rights under the 9th Amendment?
excon
LOL, Smoothy you make a big argument about what the emperor can or cannot do, but he has done it and you have not repealed or overturned any thing not even through the court. So whom should we believe? YOU? Or him?
Additionally, many can interpret the constitution in many ways but SCOTUS is the final arbiter, not the TParty, or the rest of the loony's who have never read the damn thing, or understand what they read.
9th Amendment legal definition of 9th Amendment. 9th Amendment synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.
Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
9th Amendment
I know you can read as well as use Google...
If you like the readers digest version.
The Constitution Explained - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
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 06:26 PM. |