Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: AKcurly on April 25, 2004, 02:50:38 AM
-
And yet:
He favors amending the constitution
1. to prevent gay marriage
2. to outlaw abortion
3. criminalize flag burning
4. to balance the budget
5. to enshrine victim's rights
Lol, read Sunday's Doonesbury - it's a hoot. ;)
BTW, no one has collected Doonesbury's offered reward of $10,000.00 to anyone who would swear they saw Bush in Alabama during the period of time he was assigned there (national guard.)
curly
-
Originally posted by AKcurly
And yet:
He favors amending the constitution
1. to prevent gay marriage
2. to outlaw abortion
3. criminalize flag burning
4. to balance the budget
5. to enshrine victim's rights
Lol, read Sunday's Doonesbury - it's a hoot. ;)
BTW, no one has collected Doonesbury's offered reward of $10,000.00 to anyone who would swear they saw Bush in Alabama during the period of time he was assigned there (national guard.)
curly
I don't see anything wrong with any of these, other than the terms you use to describe each one.
1. to define marriage as between a man and a woman..good
2. to protect human life..good
3.good
4.good
5.to protect victim's rights...good
-
Originally posted by NUKE
I don't see anything wrong with any of these, other than the terms you use to describe each one.
I agree Nuke, but unfortunately, that isn't the point. ;) The point is that on the one hand, Georgie is saying one thing (strict constitutional constructionism) and on the other hand advocating changes to the constitution.
Which are we to believe? Both? :)
curly
-
Well, it depends
The constitution allows for change by amendment, so is he really against constitutional constructionism?
maybe I'm misunderstanding what constitutional constructionism means?
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Well, it depends
The constitution allows for change by amendment, so is he really against constitutional constructionism?
maybe I'm misunderstanding what constitutional constructionism means?
Dunno - in this context it means ... sacred document and all changes to the constitution must be "constructed from the original document." It excludes amendments since constructionism in the face of amendments is meaningless.
curly
-
sometime i have feeling that US is second most HC theocratic country, whitch trying to hide it
Is it still mandatory to say that non sense evry morning before school start ?
-
Regardless of the issue of constructionism, can't think of better amendments to reverse progress and yet again move somewhat closer to the debilitated moral vision of GWB and his co-religious right goons...
sad and frightening to see the perhaps most influential man of the world without any clue whatsoever.
-
Perhaps he should ask you how to do things Thud, since you seem to know what you're doing.
Les
-
Sad to see this from you too curly. You'd think GW didn't give you a reach around on his last visit with the overall quality of your posts lately.
Either that or you're taking your current political cues from bumper stickers.
MiniD
-
Regardless of the subject of this post how can't the US constitution be changed ?
I mean (for example) should the new constitution have 60% of the sena voter or any other condition ?
-
just another "admire kerry curly" post - nothing of substance folks
look at the alternative curly .... you truely think it is better than the present admin?
-
If we didnt have radical jusdges on the bench creating law through precidence there would be no need to amend the constitution. But every time somonthing GOOD comes from the govt some fringe aclu group representing a minority of opinion ssues the govt to change it AND They allways flie this suite with a libral radical judge
-
Where'd you'd get the idea that Bush is a "strict constitutional constructionist" Curly?
I've always had the impression that he was more of a "historical contructionist" and interested in the intent of the framers. I don't think we need an amendment to define marriage. However, I'm from the south and don't really see marriage and the family unit disappearing without laws defining marriage in the traditional sense. I could be wrong. If marriage and the traditional family unit disappears in a few generations what do you suppose we'll have in it's place?
-
This is horrible. I think maybe George needs to pay closer attention to JFK II when he takes both sides of an issue.
-
Curly, I don't think you get what constructionism is.
Constructionism, be it loose or strict, is based solely off of how you read it.
I.E. Most liberals favor Loose Constructionism. This can actually change the meaning of the constitution. They believe that the constitution is up for interpretation and can be interpretated however they like. Meaning you can interpret everything from the constitution.
Most conservatives favor strict constructionism. This means that the Constitution is meant exactly how it is written. It is not up for interpretation.
Who's right? Don't know.
However, each side can change the constitution via Ammendment. There is nothing wrong with this.
-
Burn the Great Shaitan Bosh!!!!
-
I always thought constructionist believe in strick interpretation rather than liberal interpretation. That is to say adding amendmants is not beyond the scope of constructionism.
I may be mistaken
-
Please define "strict, constitutional constructionism" as viewed by Bush. You know libertarians believe in "strict, constitutional constructionism" and if you look how they define it would be at odds with most conservative republicans.
Are saying Bush believes in the exact literal reading of the Constitution leaving no room for interpretation?
Or he believes in the original / historical intentions of the writers?
The definition of "strict, constitutional constructionism" is as ambiguous as the Constitution itself.
Bush is in opposition to activist judges who re-interpret laws to suit their modern political view. Instead of leaving certain decisions to the legislative branch some liberal judges actually make law.
Had it not been for these types of judges Bush wouldn’t need to support most of the issues you cite.
Also in this "democracy" very few politicians take responsibility for what they do and cause. A "balanced budget amendment" is a tool to force responsibility on the legislator to convince them to quit spending more money then they take in. I don’t support it but I understand the desire to gain some control. But even so what do you think a "strict, constitutional constructionist" thinks about taxes to begin with?
There’s another thread going on right now about "Reagonomics". "Liberals kept spending" and "Reagan kept cutting". Who's fault was it?
"Victim's rights" is something I don’t agree with. Justices should be blind not only toward the accused but toward the victim and the law should be applied based on the facts of the crime itself rather then having a parade of family and friends of the victims crying before a jury.
-
Guys, constructionism has no connection to ammendments at all!
Be it loose or strict, ammendments are allowed.
-
Flip Flop!
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Curly, I don't think you get what constructionism is.
Constructionism, be it loose or strict, is based solely off of how you read it.
I.E. Most liberals favor Loose Constructionism. This can actually change the meaning of the constitution. They believe that the constitution is up for interpretation and can be interpretated however they like. Meaning you can interpret everything from the constitution.
Most conservatives favor strict constructionism. This means that the Constitution is meant exactly how it is written. It is not up for interpretation.
Who's right? Don't know.
However, each side can change the constitution via Ammendment. There is nothing wrong with this.
Weird, that's what I said - meant exactly how it is written. Obviously it has to be up for interpretation. For example, Brown versus Board of Education.
curly
-
Originally posted by Eagler
just another "admire kerry curly" post - nothing of substance folks
look at the alternative curly .... you truely think it is better than the present admin?
Eagler, I'm not a big Kerry fan, and given the choice, would vote for someone else. But vote for Bush? He's a mental midget in short pants; his gang of cronies are crooks; he borders on being a pathological liar.
Bush's speeches are his sole redeeming virtue. They are very entertaining. He invents new words, uses real words in inappropriate ways and generally makes a fool of himself.
curly
-
Originally posted by AKcurly
Eagler, I'm not a big Kerry fan, and given the choice, would vote for someone else. But vote for Bush? He's a mental midget in short pants; his gang of cronies are crooks; he borders on being a pathological liar.
Bush's speeches are his sole redeeming virtue. They are very entertaining. He invents new words, uses real words in inappropriate ways and generally makes a fool of himself.
curly
Now you know how those slightly right of center felt in the 2000 election (Gore our other choice). ;)
-
But vote for Bush? He's a mental midget in short pants; his gang of cronies are crooks; he borders on being a pathological liar.
====
really just trash talking now. Nothing to hold on to from what I can tell.
Bush's speeches are his sole redeeming virtue. They are very entertaining. He invents new words, uses real words in inappropriate ways and generally makes a fool of himself.
====
Yeah, he can be entertaining alright but I just contrast that with the eight years of slick willy and his absolute lack of sincerity or integrity and then recall how much I detested that man and Bush looks just fine.
Four more years.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
He invents new words, uses real words in inappropriate ways
He's got nothing on Don King, that guy is a riot.
-
Curly, you missed the point.
Constructionism has to do with what's on paper at that exact moment. If you don't like it, you can change it.
However, constructionism has to do with how the constitution is read.
It's sort of like reading a book. Some people read the book and take it exactly for what it says. Others try to interpret what it says even though the author says it's not up for interpretation (damn 11th grade english teacher).
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Now you know how those slightly right of center felt in the 2000 election (Gore our other choice). ;)
Sure, Rip, that was precisely my location too (and still is.) I knew Gore was brighter than Bush and less likely to be hijacked by his VP and/or cabinet. Gore's strength is his dad; his weakness is he's about as sharp as a basketball.
Looks like the same show this time too.
curly
-
Originally posted by AKcurly
And yet:
He favors amending the constitution
1. to prevent gay marriage
2. to outlaw abortion
3. criminalize flag burning
4. to balance the budget
5. to enshrine victim's rights
He's got my vote on that alone:aok
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Curly, you missed the point.
Constructionism has to do with what's on paper at that exact moment. If you don't like it, you can change it.
However, constructionism has to do with how
Sure lasersailor, you're right. Anyone who believes in the strict interpretation of the constitution certainly believes in amending the constitution
Strict constructionism is a hot phrase used by conservative legislators to convince the public that they (and they alone) are faithful to the constitution.
I just found Bushes squirming (to avoid the consequences of the constitution) amusing.
curly