Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: wrag on March 22, 2007, 03:35:17 PM
-
Intersting idea here............
http://www.newswithviews.com/DeWeese/tom78.htm
trying to bring the Judges under some kind of control?
-
Go Ron! :)
America is Sick.
Dr. Ron Paul
is the Cure.
Ron Paul '08 or bust!
-
Looks good
-
I want to see his stance on Environmental and Immigration issues before I make judgement.
-
The degradation of modern american society really began with Lincoln.
-
Scary crap.
I think you guys think you're patriotic. I wonder which Country you're patriotic for?
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
The degradation of modern american society really began with Lincoln.
I'd go with Hamilton and the First Bank of the United States, but that's just me...
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
I wonder which Country you're patriotic for?
The original United States.... you know, the one the founders actually laid out in the Constitution.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Scary crap.
I think you guys think you're patriotic. I wonder which Country you're patriotic for?
Why do you find it scary?
-
It is scary that mt and others believe in socialism. Or.. that lincoln was correct.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Toad
The original United States.... you know, the one the founders actually laid out in the Constitution.
Oh... the one where slaves are 3/5ths of a person.
got it.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Oh... the one where slaves are 3/5ths of a person.
got it.
They did what they had to in order to actually create a U.S.
about 1/2 of the states REFUSED to join the union UNLESS they could keep their slaves.
Interestingly enough SLAVERY is ALIVE and well in the middle east. Never has stopped over there.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Oh... the one where slaves are 3/5ths of a person.
got it.
Oh and don't forget the sprinkle of Imperialism, every good stew needs a touch..
-
well... that was fine for the time. The problem was that "people" was not extended to all people.. slaves were not citizens and they would be now. as such.. there really could not have been slavery.
It would have faded out no matter what tho because it was a bad idea. Any human would be "the people" the africans of the time were not thought to be human.
We know that they are now so... end of problem. The document works fine.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
The degradation of modern american society really began with Lincoln.
Glad to see I'm not the only one!
-
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.
-
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
-
um...
no.
not really.
sometimes.
OK.
and
minority is pretty well defined already.
-
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.
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.
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government" (Article IV, Section 4)
But you knew that.........
-
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
-
Who needs checks and balances anyways?
-
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...
-
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)
-
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? :huh
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?
-
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.
-
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.
"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:
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.
-
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.
-
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........................ ..
-
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.
-
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.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
The degradation of modern american society really began with Lincoln.
I could never understand this fascination with Lincoln and crediting him with greatness.
-
You are dead wrong Meitla.
Sometimes government is needed to correct social problems.
Brown v Board of Education (http://www.nationalcenter.org/brown.html)
-
Actually, the 14th "fixed" the Brown V Board problem in the approved Constitutional manner.
:)
-
Really?
I mean... reeeeaallly?
1. BvB decision was based on the 14th... so good on you.
2. BvB was necessary because the 14th was 'defined' by earlier courts as allowing 'separate but equal'.
3. So the SC "redefined" the meaning of the constitution.
4. Darned activist judges.
-
Love your spin.
Another way to look at is activist judges made a mistake with Plessy in the same way other activist judges did with Miller.
I don't think you have to be exceptionally smart to understand Section I of the 14th.
But then, there are always some judges who think they are so smart they can twist the meanings of the Constitution.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
You are dead wrong Meitla.
Sometimes government is needed to correct social problems.
Brown v Board of Education (http://www.nationalcenter.org/brown.html)
Roe v Wade
-
From Ron Paul's web site.
The Ron Paul FREEDOM PRINCIPLES
Rights belong to individuals, not groups.
Property should be owned by people, not government.
All voluntary associations should be permissible -- economic and social.
The government's monetary role is to maintain the integrity of the monetary unit, not participate in fraud.
Government exists to protect liberty, not to redistribute wealth or to grant special privileges.
The lives and actions of people are their own responsibility, not the government's.
Is there anyone that seriously disagrees with any of these points ... why?
-
Because those rules wouldn't allow me to tell you what to do or take your money and give it to others?
:)
-
Originally posted by mietla
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 problems like slavery and other enequities due to race, color or religion, union rights, mine and other workplace safety, child labor, railroad safety and safety of transportation in general, TR era trust busting, civil service reform, all these are social problems that the Fed Government has largely succeeded in fixing. (looking from a 1835 era perspective) They are entirely constitutional as ruled by the SC.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
You are dead wrong Meitla.
Sometimes government is needed to correct social problems.
Brown v Board of Education (http://www.nationalcenter.org/brown.html)
I am dead right MT. Just because it is expedicious and convenient does not make it constitutional.
Some people think that government is "needed" to make sure that everyone earns the same income.
We should never allow the government to run our little errands for us. Once we do, it is just a matter of time when we are slaves in a totalitarian system.
For the "greater good" of course.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Really?
I mean... reeeeaallly?
1. BvB decision was based on the 14th... so good on you.
2. BvB was necessary because the 14th was 'defined' by earlier courts as allowing 'separate but equal'.
3. So the SC "redefined" the meaning of the constitution.
4. Darned activist judges.
you are right, Darned activist judges. Just because you like the outcome does not make it right.
BvB was not necessary. If "separate but equal" was perceived to be problem and 14th allowed it, do the right thing and amend the 14th.
CONSTITUTIONALLY!
-
Originally posted by MrBill
From Ron Paul's web site.
The Ron Paul FREEDOM PRINCIPLES
Rights belong to individuals, not groups.
Property should be owned by people, not government.
All voluntary associations should be permissible -- economic and social.
The government's monetary role is to maintain the integrity of the monetary unit, not participate in fraud.
Government exists to protect liberty, not to redistribute wealth or to grant special privileges.
The lives and actions of people are their own responsibility, not the government's.
Is there anyone that seriously disagrees with any of these points ... why?
tell me MT, which ones scare you and why?
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Social problems like slavery and other enequities due to race, color or religion, union rights, mine and other workplace safety, child labor, railroad safety and safety of transportation in general, TR era trust busting, civil service reform, all these are social problems that the Fed Government has largely succeeded in fixing. (looking from a 1835 era perspective) They are entirely constitutional as ruled by the SC.
well yeah, the key phrase is "as ruled by the SC".
-
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.
1. We are not a democracy.
2. We are being ruled by the tyrrany of the minority due to the current misconduct of judges in the U.S. I think our diverse and highly populous minority have got quite a strangle hold on 1/3 of the U.S.'s short hairs by virtue of the back breaking efforts that 1/3 has been indoctrinated into through judicial misconduct to fear ruffeling even one hair on only one of the minorities brow. At which point the constitution is thrown out the window because it does not include a protection from having one's hair ruffled upon ones brow in public. I have it on good authority it's hidden in the 1st Amendmant. It's just us 1/3rdr's are incapable of seeing it.............
Democracy and rights of the minority remids me of the crapola I was fed in a Social Justice class by a Marxist professor at the University of Maryland in 1975. Same semantic lingo...dejavu.....
-
Some people are just scared of loosing their free lunch.
-
And to the Republic.................for which it stands.
Line sound familiar?
-
Originally posted by mietla
I could never understand this fascination with Lincoln and crediting him with greatness.
:huh
(http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y70/BigTon/space20balls20darth20vader3gc.gif)
-
if you are trying to say something, say it. I do not speak cartoonese.
-
Just curious about your statement. This is one of the only times I have every come across someone who did not hold President Lincoln in high regard. I guess I'm a little shocked.
-
You did hear about John Wilkes Booth, right?
-
Originally posted by mietla
You did hear about John Wilkes Booth, right?
Are you likening yourself to a Presidential assassin?
I guess we all need our heroes. ;)
-
just trying to give you an example of someone who was not a fan.
hundreds of thousands dead were probably not crazy for him either. He did a number on the constitution as well.
Keeping the union at any cost? I guess that's the ticket to greatness. Most butchers are praised after a while, especially those who won.
just to name a few.
Qin Shihuangdi
Ceasar
Alexander
Gingis Khan
Hitler... actually no, this one does not qualify. He has lost, but his buddy butcher Stalin is still revered even here in the USA.
No one remembers those killed/tortured to death, but everyone remembers "unified" China, Rome, Greece or USA for that matter.