Check out some similar questions!

talaniman · Jan 10, 2012, 10:09 AM

LOL, should be the rights kind of guy, a money man that knows the system.

tomder55 · Jan 10, 2012, 11:06 AM

Nah... the vast majority of the 1% types are northeast Democrats or Hollywierdos .

Lew is replacing William Daley who was himself a Wall Street insider(JPMorgan ).
When he went into OMB from Citi he replaced Peter Orszag;who left for a position in Citi. (the Obama revolving door)
The difference between Lew and Daley is that Daley was brought in for at least the illusion that the President was trying to straddle the middle .

This guy Lew is a lefty to the core. He used to work for "progressive populist" demagogue Senator Paul Wellstone. He should fit in well in the Obama White House... at least if he gets Michelle's seal of approval.

TUT317 · Jan 10, 2012, 04:21 PM

Originally Posted by tomder55

The so called right to privacy was not something the people were demanding ;nor was it implied in any of the amendments except where it specifically banned the government from acting (ie the 4th amendment protections against unreasonable searches .Just that wording alone is more than enough proof that the founders didn't think there was a right to privacy.)

Hi Tom,

Wouldn't this at best be totally impractical? At worst, a very bad idea?

I think there was an obvious realization that to actually specify rights in a constitution is all very well, but what you will end up doing is excluding other rights not specified. Isn't this the reason the 9th Amendment was added? You have certain specified rights, but the 9th also leaves the door open for entitlements.

Originally Posted by tomder55

He later explained his strategery:
Judges dislike breaking entirely new ground. If they are considering adopting a novel principle, they prefer to rest their decision on earlier law if they can, and to show that the present case involves merely an incremental change, not a wholesale break with the past. Constitutional litigators are forever trying to persuade courts that the result they are seeking would be just a short step from some other case whose decision rests soundly on ancient precedent.

Since the issue of sexual privacy had not been raised in any earlier case, we employed the familiar technique of argument by analogy: If there is no exact counterpart to the particular case before the Court, there are others that resemble it in a general sort of way, and the principles applied in the similar cases should also be applied — perhaps even extended a little bit — to the new case.

In other words they make it up as they go along giving the judges the cover to move the ball along to their ultimate objective of changing the constitution while pretending to uphold it.

This is always going to be a problem when common law comes into conflict with constitutional law. If you get a lawyer clever with words then constitutional law will probably win. This is regardless of the fact that a common law has been demonstrated as being a good law.
Don't really see an answer to that one.

As stated earlier I don't believe that any constitution can adequately cover all our 'rights'. To attempt to make it do so would be a very bad idea. This is why we have the prevision of entitlements as well.

Originally Posted by tomder55

Justice William O. Douglas wrote for the majority in the Griswold case that the right was to be found in the "penumbras" and "emanations" of other constitutional protections.

Now you talk of clear language ? What the hell was that supposed to mean ? A penumbra is an term describing the partial shadow in an eclipse or the edge of a sunspot . Emanation is a scientific term for gas made from radioactive decay . Somehow he managed to twist the language to make it mean that there are hidden meanings in the words of the Constitution .

To be honest I don't know. It is frustrating. Things might be different if we were doing mathematics. But we are not. We are doing language. Some words,don't have precise meanings. Meanings can change depending on the context we find them.

Tut

talaniman · Jan 10, 2012, 04:41 PM

Give those founders a break. These are the guys that said all men are created equal, while owning slaves.

Nothing written by man is in stone, but they tried. They probably hoped the next generation of Americans could do better. So it doesn't matter what they meant in the constitution, they covered as many bases as they could, and left room for improvements.

tomder55 · Jan 10, 2012, 05:18 PM

Tal yes give them a break indeed . They craftfully put a timeline on the life of the slave trade even as many of them were slaveholders . The compromise said that Congress could consider the end of the trade in 1808 (giving the nation the time needed to form before the contentious issue tore the new Repubilic apart .)

In addition they added the much mistakenly maligned 3/5th compromise. People today who scoff at this compromise fail to appreciate that this clause significantly weakened the South's ability to use it's population to gain power in the country. Southern states fought for slaves to be counted in terms of representation. The 3/5th compromise had every five slaves counted as three individuals in terms of representation. It had NOTHING to do with a slave being less than a person as the modern history misreads the act.

I assure you ;the founders ,even the slave holders ,were ahead of their time .They foresaw an end to the trade ;and their work in the next 80 years would've made for a peaceful transition... if only SCOTUS hadn't screwed it all up with the Dredd Scott decision which rendered all the careful compromises mute.

talaniman · Jan 10, 2012, 06:21 PM

Great spin, but totally BOGUS. The south had no intention of giving up big profits through exploitation of free labor, and wanted to spread there influence on new emerging states. Sure they compromised on paper but in reality, they were going to scrap any plan and fight to keep their power, money, and property.

The war was over states rights true enough, the right to own other humans. That's why they felt the need to secede from the country, the law be damned, they had their guns, we had a war. They lost, and we are still moving socially away from slavery. Except now its money in the hands of the few, taken off the backs of the many. That's what the election now is about.

Righties are still flying the fear flag, and think its about their rights, which of course trumps everyone else's.

tomder55 · Jan 11, 2012, 04:58 AM

The war was over states rights true enough, the right to own other humans.

Correct

The south had no intention of giving up big profits through exploitation of free labor, and wanted to spread there influence on new emerging states.

That's where you are wrong. The Missouri Compromise had settled that issue and would've been the eventual death knell of the slave trade as more free states joined the union. The Dredd Scott decision made the Missouri Compromise null and even worse ;made every citizen in the country a criminal if they helped an escaped slave. It was that act of the life time appointed oligarchs that was most responsible for the war.Eighty years of compromising (beginning with the Constitutional Convention) down the drain. In one fell swoop,compromise was found to be unconstitutional. All the hard work by the founders and subsequent members of Congress destroyed by an absolutely suicidal and constitutionally wrong decision.

talaniman · Jan 11, 2012, 01:00 PM

Nice rant, but doesn't even come close to the reasons behind seccession or the seizing of federal property by the south. Moreover the Missouri compromise nor the Dredd Scott ruling did anything for the slaves themselves, just the legal rights of the masters, and the states right claim that they could make their own rules.

They were wrong. Just as the social engineering by republican governors is wrong. Then as now it was an over reach by conservatives to retain power, control, and MONEY, that adversely affect PEOPLE, and I would submit as evidence the business model sold as capitalism that has been subverted by those that say profits over people, that like slavery, is an unsustainable path forward.

Not against capitalism per sey, but the application, and affects on REAL live people is no better than the socialism practiced in large areas of the world today. Even worse, it's the weakening of the social safety nets by those same people that's the most disgusting and shows the intentions of the 1% to return to the good old days of socio-economic supremacy by the ruling class, on the backs of the new slave class.

It was wrong then, and even more wrong now.

tomder55 · Jan 11, 2012, 02:26 PM

So in other words you don't revere the document created by those 1%er slave holding right winged founders .
That certainly explains why the left treats it like toilet paper.

talaniman · Jan 11, 2012, 03:31 PM

Wanting to make it mean what it says is hardly disrespectful, but its acknowledging its but a structure to build on as MORE facts become evident.

Not like the self proclaimed righties who wish to use it as a means to get what you want at the cost of others.

I think its you who wrap yourself in god and the flag who are disrespectful to us all by not making room for other ideas that are not your own. That's what the founding fathers envisioned. The growth and evolution of a society that keeps thriving to be more perfect. Not stay stuck in the ways of those who exploit for gain, at the expense of the rest of the population.

Sorry Tom, I won't be dismissed because I ain't got as much money as you, nor be pushed aside while you do your thing, and make rules to make sure I can't do mine. Nor will I worship long gone man as you do.

The founding fathers were flawed humans trying to do the right things, not gods. Nor are we now. But you do whatever you please because that's what I am going to do, no matter who ends up being the Prez, or the laws they pass.

I won't hold it against you for kissing the Romney butt. But when he takes your pension, social security, Medicare, and tells you to go back to washing dishes for a living, don't say I didn't tell you so. When he takes your job, and home unless you are his slave to his system, don't say you weren't warned.

When he leaves all his loot he got off your back to HIS grand kids, don't cry foul. But you guys will holler, and that's the insanity of the right wing. Seen it before, and this time is no different. That's how we got Bush, and if you want to wear a 3 corner hat, and whistle Dixie, fine, do it, but don't get mad if I don't join you.

I ain't crazy enough to join a group that works openly against MY best interest. So go ahead, and vote for the one percent to screw the rest of us. The conservatives are GREAT at using my rights for toilet paper.

tomder55 · Jan 11, 2012, 04:53 PM

Thanks... the idea that Romney is a conservative that I'd butt kiss is the laugh of the week .

Bottom line.. the founders set up a method to change the Constitution. You would rather have life time appointed judges do the dirty deed than through the amendment process or the elected representatives.

talaniman · Jan 11, 2012, 05:24 PM

LOL, maybe its time to tweak many aspects of the system, you think? And if Romney wins the nomination, you mean you won't support him?

paraclete · Jan 11, 2012, 06:59 PM

That's what he means if Romney wins the nonimation Toms going to vote Obama or sit in his lounge room whinning

talaniman · Jan 11, 2012, 07:32 PM

That's what happened in 2008. Boy did the right get pissed, and wa-la, the Tea party gets born, and gives birth to a motley cast of characters.

What's worse, most of the present list of candidates cannot even figure out how to get on the ballots in all the states! No telling what will happen next to the republican party.

speechlesstx · Jan 12, 2012, 08:14 AM

One doesn't have to "butt kiss" to support the eventual nominee. I'll support whoever it is before I'd cast a vote for Obama.

talaniman · Jan 12, 2012, 10:27 AM

Its certainly your right to vote for a guy who made his money leveraging companies for their assets, including pensions, and hoarding it for his grand kids silver spoons. But knowing a guy who is laid off and his job sent to India, is scary and even scarier, is that could be you, but for the grace of the corporations putting profits over people.

Now I am not against capitalism, but don't tell me its just business when you take my lively hood, and promise to take my safety net too, and call me a lazy SOB!!

Just saying.

speechlesstx · Jan 12, 2012, 11:48 AM

Dude, I've been unemployed thanks to people who valued money over people. Been there done that more than once. I just picked myself up and moved to the next adventure. I don't care how Romney made his money but I do know in business that's your job, to produce more than you cost. It's life. I'd much rather take my chances in a free, capitalist America than the socially engineered utopia envisioned by the moron-in-chief.

You know it's funny that so many people are sweating over the possibility of Europe imploding but want to take us down the same path. I take that back, it's not funny - it's stupid.

excon · Jan 12, 2012, 12:31 PM

Hello Guys:

When Mitt Romney Came To Town. Starring the devastated, the foreclosed, and the unemployed..

I'd give it a thumbs up. As a dedicated OWS'er, I couldn't agree with Newt MORE. Bwa, ha ha ha ha.

excon

talaniman · Jan 12, 2012, 01:29 PM

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Dude, I've been unemployed thanks to people who valued money over people. Been there done that more than once. I just picked myself up and moved to the next adventure. I don't care how Romney made his money but I do know in business that's your job, to produce more than you cost. It's life. I'd much rather take my chances in a free, capitalist America than the socially engineered utopia envisioned by the moron-in-chief.

You know it's funny that so many people are sweating over the possibility of Europe imploding but want to take us down the same path. I take that back, it's not funny - it's stupid.

That's what the Mittster is selling, but look at the policies of the EU for yourself, and then look at Mitts rhetoric. There is no difference except the right blames it on the left. Haven't you even read the 59 page tax policy he touts? I go with free capitolism, but NOT total extraction. And while you think it's a matter of going to the next adventure, EXTRACTIONISM, severely will limit your options, and opportunities.

But then changing the business model, or any mention of changing anything triggers conservative right wing push back. But Mitt ain't no conservative, he is a businessss man. You will find that out after the primaries are over, and he stops throw you guys the red meat rhetoric you so crave.

speechlesstx · Jan 12, 2012, 02:24 PM

I'm not expecting much red meat from Mitt, but a little is a whole lot more than we're getting from the current occupant. Oh, and I'm ready to change the business model. Stop spending what we don't have and make the lazy SOBs get a job instead of sucking the life out of me.