Author Topic: Go Ron Paul (Read 918 times)

midnight Target · « **Reply #15 on:** March 23, 2007, 08:35:14 AM »

Quote

The "We the People" Act prohibits the Supreme Court and each federal court from making decisions on any claim, or relying on previous judicial decisions involving: (1) state or local laws, regulations, or policies concerning the free exercise or establishment of religion; (2) the right of privacy, including issues of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or (3) the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation where based upon equal protection of the laws.

The true measure of a democracy is not in how well it serves the majority, but in how well it protects the rights of the minority.

lazs2 · « **Reply #16 on:** March 23, 2007, 08:45:24 AM »

sooo... you would say that democracy is wrong and that individualism is the only moral path? that socialism is evil?

I would agree with you. Or.... do you get to pick and choose the "minority"?

lazs

midnight Target · « **Reply #17 on:** March 23, 2007, 08:49:02 AM »

um...

no.
not really.
sometimes.
OK.
and
minority is pretty well defined already.

Toad · « **Reply #18 on:** March 23, 2007, 08:54:54 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
Oh... the one where slaves are 3/5ths of a person.

got it.

Well, it wasn't perfect at the start but it was a giant leap forward for mankind.

Most importantly it was well thought out.

That's why it did incorporate a means and method to improve itself. To date there have been about 27 amendments to the Constitution. I believe #13 solved the problem you mention and did so in the Constitutionally approved way.

Now you may not agree, but I much prefer fixing and Constitutional problems that arise by using the Constitutionally provided method which is an amendment.

I don't approve of judges that just pull new interpretations out of their ass, a salient example being Miller, where the SC decided that a short-barreled shotgun is not a military weapon. Clearly, they didn't know their history and they didn't know a military weapon from a soup ladle.

Quote

The true measure of a democracy is not in how well it serves the majority, but in how well it protects the rights of the minority

And the true measure of an informed person is that he recognizes that the US is a Constitutional Republic, not a pure democracy.

Quote

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government" (Article IV, Section 4)

But you knew that.........

lazs2 · « **Reply #19 on:** March 23, 2007, 09:09:07 AM »

Ok mt.. perhaps I do not know what the defenition of "minority" is.

please define the words "minority" "protects" and "democracy" and... last but not least.... "rights"

It would seem that I have a more conventional way of reading these words.

A machine gun owner is a minority... A polish American is a minority.. A KKK member is a minority.

You "protect" them by making sure that they have the same "rights" as everyone else... not extra or less... you protect them by making sure that "democracy" can't take away their rights.

lazs

namvet · « **Reply #20 on:** March 23, 2007, 09:38:01 AM »

Who needs checks and balances anyways?

Eagler · « **Reply #21 on:** March 23, 2007, 09:49:18 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
sooo... you would say that democracy is wrong and that individualism is the only moral path? that socialism is evil?

I would agree with you. Or.... do you get to pick and choose the "minority"?

lazs

which minority?
I don't think the blacks or hispanics are the minority anymore ... maybe its us, the little white guys...

midnight Target · « **Reply #22 on:** March 23, 2007, 10:15:18 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad

And the true measure of an informed person is that he recognizes that the US is a Constitutional Republic, not a pure democracy.

But you knew that.........

Are you serious? You actually want to make some kind of point with semantics? Of course we aren't a 'pure democracy'. Neither are we purely capitalist or purely socialist or purely anything.

But when we talk about spreading 'democracy' through the Middle East no one says "no wait! Lets spread constitutional republics!"

LOL Toad.

So where exactly in the constitution does it say that judges should be limited in the cases they hear? Where does it say that the legislature can not be checked on certain subjects? (read the 11th amendment)

Xargos · « **Reply #23 on:** March 23, 2007, 10:30:36 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
The true measure of a democracy is not in how well it serves the majority, but in how well it protects the rights of the minority.

Yea, Bring back the Aparthied then?

Just because my skin is white doesn't mean I owe anyone a free ride. And just because you don't have white skin means you have more rights then me?

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #24 on:** March 23, 2007, 10:37:22 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
The true measure of a democracy is not in how well it serves the majority, but in how well it protects the rights of the minority.

All it takes to screw over half the population in a democracy is just one more vote.

Toad · « **Reply #25 on:** March 23, 2007, 10:40:07 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
So where exactly in the constitution does it say that judges should be limited in the cases they hear? Where does it say that the legislature can not be checked on certain subjects? (read the 11th amendment)

First it bears repeating this is not a democracy. If you read the Founders, a democracy was about the last thing they wanted.

Quote

"Remember democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."

-- John Adams, letter to John Taylor, April 15, 1814

IMO, we are drifting into this type of democracy. I think it'd be best if we worked harder at being a republic and bit less of a democracy.

Now, I never said judges should be limited in the cases they hear. You are trying to change the subject. What I said was:

Quote

Now you may not agree, but I much prefer fixing and Constitutional problems that arise by using the Constitutionally provided method which is an amendment.

I don't approve of judges that just pull new interpretations out of their ass, a salient example being Miller, where the SC decided that a short-barreled shotgun is not a military weapon. Clearly, they didn't know their history and they didn't know a military weapon from a soup ladle.

Judges shouldn't fix problems that are Constitutional in nature; Congress and the States do that by means of the amendment process.

Judges rule on what the Constitution says, not on what they wish it would say if they had written it. In short, they rule on what is already law. The Miller case is a failure of the judiciary; they did not rule on the law, they ruled on what they wished the law would have been if they had written it.

They interpret the law but they can't make stuff up. Miller's ruling that the shotgun is not a military weapon is simply making stuff up. No one in their right mind could say that with a straight face if they had any knowledge of the shotgun's use in the American Revolution, the Civil War, various lesser wars and the recent (for that court) example of WWI.

That is judicial acitivism and it is wrong.

midnight Target · « **Reply #26 on:** March 23, 2007, 10:45:53 AM »

Well one of us is staying on topic in this thread. Please read the quote I took from the link that is the subject of this thread. The entire point is to limit the cases judges can hear. I think that is wrong. Sounds to me like you should be agreeing with me.

wrag · « **Reply #27 on:** March 23, 2007, 10:50:16 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
The true measure of a democracy is not in how well it serves the majority, but in how well it protects the rights of the minority.

OK ...

WE DO NOT HAVE A DEMOCRACY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We have a Representative Republic with individual RIGHTS!

If you look closely at TRUE Democracy it most often results in the majority ruling over the minority.

SOOOOO... A true Democracy doesn't protect, and won't protect, the rights of the minority!

Measure all you want, it will not change the facts........................ ..

wrag · « **Reply #28 on:** March 23, 2007, 11:03:52 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
Well one of us is staying on topic in this thread. Please read the quote I took from the link that is the subject of this thread. The entire point is to limit the cases judges can hear. I think that is wrong. Sounds to me like you should be agreeing with me.

It's limiting?

Explain please..................

IMHO some of these Judges NEED limiting.

I do not want a Judge that says our legal system should be more like the europians. IMHO that judge should be removed from the bench, or never should have been placed on it in the 1st place. IMHO they just violated their oath to uphold the Constitution and should be removed for doing so! Such a statement, IMHO, show a lack of understanding of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. We are NOT europians and I for one don't wish to become europian.

mietla · « **Reply #29 on:** March 23, 2007, 11:34:14 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
The true measure of a democracy is not in how well it serves the majority, but in how well it protects the rights of the minority.

protect rights is the last thing the libs want to do. They think nothing of taking away individual rights in order to promote their agenda and their vision of the society. For the "greater good" of course.

Government is not a tool to fix social problems. It is unconstitutional for them to attempt it. As long as the laws apply equally to everyone, their job is done. They have other constitutional duties to tend to, fixing people's lives is not one of them.

Social problem are just that, social. And they have to be solved by a society not by the government edict. All "anti-discrimination" laws are unconstitutional. The government itself can not discriminate against (or give a preferential treatment to) particular groups of people, but it is unconstitutional for them to force individuals to comply.

The individual has a right to choose his views and lead his life as he wishes. The government can't interfere even if they do not like it.