Check out some similar questions!

speechlesstx · Apr 1, 2008, 06:48 AM

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Steve:

That's not the question. But it does make my point. Assuming YOU think the ruling was Constitutional, the judge wasn't "activist" at all. He was just doing his job.

However, being a better person than you

What the..?

Insult aside, my question was valid and unanswered. Now please tell me, when was the last time I called a judge "activist" and whether the ruling in question was constitutional.

excon · Apr 1, 2008, 07:07 AM

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

What the...??? Insult aside, my question was valid and unanswered.

Hello again, Steve:

You didn't notice my tongue firmly planted in my cheek.

The key isn't the decisions we agree with or don't. The key is what we call judges who rule against our positions.

A better example would be a decision that said you can't have a Christmas play at your kid’s school. Would you call that "activism"? I'll bet you would.

Another example would be the Supreme Court deciding that "harsh treatment" was Constitutional. I don't agree with that. I think it's clearly unconstitutional, but I still wouldn't call it "activism".

excon, no better after all

speechlesstx · Apr 1, 2008, 11:12 AM

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Steve:

You didn't notice my tongue firmly planted in my cheek.

The key isn't the decisions we agree with or don't. The key is what we call judges who rule against our positions.

A better example would be a decision that said you can't have a Christmas play at your kid's school. Would you call that "activism"? I'll bet you would.

Another example would be the Supreme Court deciding that "harsh treatment" was Constitutional. I don't agree with that. I think it's clearly unconstitutional, but I still wouldn't call it "activism".

excon, no better after all

LOL, I know your tongue is usually planted in cheek. If I had believed you were really insulting me I would have gone a little more ballistic than that :)

My point was only that I don't think you've seen me calling judges activists very often. I think it's activism when they when they interject themselves in questions that weren't asked, rely on international law instead of our constitution and just plain make stuff up.

P.S. I never disagreed on you being a better person :)

Galveston1 · Apr 4, 2008, 05:58 PM

You know, the Constitution was written in the English language, and pretty basic English at that. It is ridiculous to what extremes some judges will go to to twist plain words into something else. Of course, if the populace won't bother to check anything out, then anything goes. This business of separation of Church and State has been blown totally out of proportion. Go back and read that part for yourself, noting where the restrictions are placed. Again, it shouldn't take an english major to understand that part about the right to bear arms. In those days, every able bodied man was considered a part of the militia. The majority of Americans understand these things, and when some judge says something contrary to this plain language, they just naturally suspect that he/she has some hidden agenda. Or maybe not hidden.

excon · Apr 4, 2008, 06:24 PM

Hello again, Gal:

That's the difference between us. I think the rulings Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito make are clearly against the very plain language you speak of. However, I just think they're misguided. I don't think they're unpatriotic or communists, which is the kind of things I think you're afraid of..

excon

speechlesstx · Apr 5, 2008, 05:25 AM

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Gal:

That's the difference between us. I think the rulings Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito make are clearly against the very plain language you speak of. However, I just think they're misguided. I don't think they're unpatriotic or communists, which is the kind of things I think you're afraid of..

Did you disagree with their smackdown of Bush last week?

In rejecting Bush's order Tuesday, the high court, led by its conservatives, took the opportunity to make a strong statement on the limits of presidential power.

excon · Apr 5, 2008, 05:35 AM

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Did you disagree with their smackdown of Bush last week?

Hello again, Steve:

Even a bad shot is going to hit the target once in a while.

excon

speechlesstx · Apr 5, 2008, 06:32 AM

Hey ex,

Since Roberts and Alito haven't taken that many shots yet I reckon that bumps up their shooting percentage. ;)

Galveston1 · Apr 7, 2008, 03:00 PM

Hey, Ex, which side of the issue are you on? There are 2 judicial philosiphies. One is sometimes referred to as "original intent" where the judge tries to base his decision on what the Constitution meant at the time it was written. The other is that the Constitution is a "living document" where the judge may decide according to his own ideas, or those of some foreign court. I suspect you are well aware of all this, so which side do you come down on? I much prefer judges to hold to "original intent".

excon · Apr 7, 2008, 03:25 PM

Originally Posted by Galveston1

Hey, Ex, which side of the issue are you on? There are 2 judicial philosiphies.

Hello again, Gal:

Neither.

I don't have the inclination to figure out what the founders thinking was. Nor, do I have the inclination to figure out how their thinking (if I knew what it was) should change with time.

Nope. I'm not that smart.

All I do is read it. In fact, the Bill of Rights is written so simply that even I, a convicted felon, can tell what they're saying. I don't need anyone to tell me what "Congress shall make no law" means. I don't even know how that phrase could grow with time. You mean, after some time, the words congress shall make no law will mean something different than they did when they were written??

I'm sorry. I don't buy it.

So, when the Constitution says that you shall be free from unwarranted searches in your house, I know what that means. When the Constitution says that you shall be afforded due process of law, I know what that means. When the Constitution says that you have the right to bear arms, I know what that means. Etc, and so on.

I know those things because I can read and understand English. And, I'm going to know those things even though some judge may tell me they mean something else.

You talk all this stuff about original intent and you sound real good. But, in the final analysis, you think George Bush has the right to spy on American citizens, and you think he has the right to deny habeas corpus to individuals he doesn't like.

Well, Galveston, you apparently believe some of Bush's "activist" judges, cause it doesn't say that in the Constitution I read.

excon

excon · Apr 7, 2008, 03:26 PM

Originally Posted by Galveston1

Hey, Ex, which side of the issue are you on? There are 2 judicial philosiphies.

Hello again, Gal:

Neither.

I don't have the inclination to figure out what the founders thinking was. Nor, do I have the inclination to figure out how their thinking (if I knew what it was) should change with time.

Nope. I'm not that smart.

All I do is read it. In fact, the Bill of Rights is written so simply that even I can tell what they're saying. I don't need anyone to tell me what "Congress shall make no law" means. I don't even know how that phrase could grow with time. You mean, after some time, the words congress shall make no law will mean something different than they did when they were written??

I'm sorry. I don't buy it.

So, when the Constitution says that you shall be free from unwarranted searches in your house, I know what that means. When the Constitution says that you shall be afforded due process of law, I know what that means. When the Constitution says that you have the right to bear arms, I know what that means. Etc, and so on.

I know those things because I can read English. And, I'm going to know those things even though some judge may tell me they mean something else.

I know you talk about all this stuff about original intent and you sound real good. But, in the final analysis, you think George Bush has the right to spy American citizens, and you think we have the right to deny habeas corpus to individuals we don't like.

Well, Galveston, you apparently believe some of Bush's "activist" judges, cause it don't say that in the Constitution I read.

excon

Galveston1 · Apr 12, 2008, 05:55 PM

Ex, do I understand that you want to extend constitutional rights to foreign terrorists, men fighting without any identifying insigna of some country? Why? Or do I misunderstand you? Do you believe that we should not scrutinize conversations originating in foreign countries to suspected aliens here? The result of extending all the rights of law to foreigners who have promised to kill us will surely lead to musroom clouds here, or something equally as devastiting.

excon · Apr 13, 2008, 06:35 AM

Hello again, Galveston:

It's isn't me who wants to do anything. It's OUR Constitution. I went back and read it again. You should do the same. Read especially the Bill of Rights...

Now, I don't know what "activist" judge you like, but evidently he inserted some words that I cannot find in the Bill of Rights. Apparently, that "activist" judge, says that Constitutional rights shall only apply to American citizens...

I looked for those words... I couldn't find 'em. Now, I suppose, if you want a Constitution that "grows" with the times, you could INSERT those words to give it a modern day feeling... You COULD do that... But, it would CHANGE the Constitution to mean something other than what it originally meant.

Nope, all the Amendments that protect YOUR rights, begin with phrases like "No person" shall be (the 5th Amendment)... Congress shall make no law abridging the right of "the people" peaceably to assemble... (the 1st)... (Amendment 2)... the right of "the people" to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed... In all criminal prosecutions, "the accused" shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public... (the 6th Amendment)... Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted... (the 8th - it doesn't say it means everybody, but I think that's what they meant. You don't?).

Can I stop now? Frankly, I don't see any words that would indicate these rights don't extend to everyman... You may see them. Certainly, your "activist" judges see them. But they escape me.

excon

tomder55 · Apr 13, 2008, 06:58 AM

The bill of rights of the United States Constitution does only apply to Americans . You will find it in the Preamble "we the people of the United States " .

excon · Apr 13, 2008, 07:06 AM

Hello again, tom:

The most beautiful words ever written were those of Thomas Jefferson in the Decleration of Independence.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Now, if YOU believe that he meant only Americans, then you truly don't understand what we're about.

excon

tomder55 · Apr 13, 2008, 09:30 AM

The declaration is not the Constitution. It is a compact between us the people of the United States. The Declaration ,as beutifully written as it was , was mostly a listing of grieviences against the crown A judge that would cite the declaration as a reason for making a Constitutional decision is indeed "activist" .It has as much pertainance as the laws of other nations that some judges cite .

speechlesstx · Apr 14, 2008, 07:13 AM

Sorry ex, tom is right. You can't move the goal post from being constitutional to giving weight of law to the Declaration of Independence. If so, then I guess we're going to have give more weight to the references to God and the Creator. Right? The constitution is clear as to who it applies to:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

If my count is correct, our constitution mentions the "United States" 85 times. It ain't talking about anybody else.

excon · Apr 14, 2008, 07:36 AM

Hello again,

This is deep stuff... I'm a Jeffersonian. Always have been.

Last night, I saw episode #5 of John Adams. The two were discussing whether America should involve itself in the revolution going on in France. Adams kept referring to it as France's revolution, as though it was different from our own.

Jefferson retorted, Aren't they one in the same?

If you believe the words in the Bill of Rights apply only to us, you're an Adams man. Me? It makes no sense to believe that only WE are entitled to those "inalienable" rights. Otherwise, they're not really "inalienable", are they?

excon, Jeffersonian

tomder55 · Apr 14, 2008, 08:04 AM

Adams was a great American. . Jefferson and Thomas Paine among others also were but were wrong on the universality of the French Revolution. It was mob rule ;confiscation of property and led to the Napoleon Dictatorship . It more resembled the later Russian Revolution than the American. Paine penned the 'Declaration of the Rights of Man... " which the French Revolution adopted . It like the Declaration of Independence has a universal message . But no one in the US feels it is binding or relevant regarding our laws.

George Washington in his wisdom ;when push came to shove and he had to make a decision that was best for the country ;rejected the notion of Jefferson that the two revolutions were continuous and of kinship with each other . You will note however that when Haiti revolted in 1791 Jefferson was not as quick to apply the universal standard to their struggle.

Jefferson served as the American Minister to France from 1785 through 1789. There are many things to like and not like about Jefferson. I consider it one of the greatest strokes of luck and/or providence that Jefferson was away in France at the time of the draft and adoption of the Constitution. I do not believe it would've passed with him at the convention .

Galveston1 · Apr 14, 2008, 05:09 PM

Well, I think Ex will agree with the statement that I am a simple man. I simply think that US laws apply to US citizens, and those aliens here legally and no other, and that foreign laws apply to those in the foreign country, not to us here. For a libertarian, Ex has some really global ideas. Although I can agree with his take on the Constitution, it is his paramaters of application that I disagree with.