I fully agree about the bickering. That is more harmfull in my opinion than anything in the Patriot Act.
Terrorism probably won't ever go away completely but it can be reduced buy keeping up with the technogies and by being unified in purpose.
Posts: 559 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is no right to privacy. Read the Constitution. Isn't there, didn't exist as a concept until Roe vs Wade and that one of the reasons that ruling is so contentious.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
once again? the right to privacy has been determined to be covered in the constitution...
this is the danger posed by political manipulation...
privacy : Amendment IV - Search and seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
furthermore, a warrant is expressly required....
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
The constitution is not a literal document. Through our court system we have come to realize our rights. Our right to privacy is unwritten yet understood in our Bill of Rights and it's interpretations throughout the history of our court system.
The patriot act is giving officials nearly unwarranted liberty to go about collecting information as they please. These blanket security measures are not reasonable. If it isn't constitutional during peacetime, it's not constitutional during war time. Matt
Posts: 1504 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
look..bottom line...you you let things like this pass..you are giving away your freedom...these dickless looneys that run this country have been tring to do just that since the constitution was signed...all that new world order bull...and if you think its not real..then you are just plain stupid...did you see bush explaining how he spys on 30000 americans a year,,,it is a goverment for the people by the people,,,not slaves to a federal dictatorship.....
-------------------- life is short..go for the long shot and ride it all the way home... Posts: 154 | From: nyc | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Why would I research and/or compare Germany when we have examples of Constitutional rights being temprarily suspended in mild forms in this nation in times of war or national emergency. German examples don't fit, our own do. I have by the way researched Germany prior to WWI, during WWI, after WWI and during WWII. I see no exmaples of what occured there occuring here. If you think we are heading toward absolute dictatorship, guess again. Bush will leave office in January of 2009 and a new President will be sworn in, no dictatorship.
Have you done the research or are you just passing on the liberal talking points about Germany?
Bush was never appointed by the Supreme Court, he was elected. There was an attempt by the Florida Supreme Court to overturn existing election laws which was refused by the US Supreme Court. That does not make an appointment, but a legitimate prevention of a lower courts ability to influence an election. Bush is not acting as a dictator. He is taking reasonable steps to secure us against another 9/11 and so far, it's worked, 4 years without a repeat performance on US soil.
What can I say. You don't bother to even look at the lies you foster.
Have I done reserach? Indeed I have.
You haven't have you. I know because I've done the research to find that outside of Fox News and the idiot fringe of Christain churches, that crap you expouse is thouroughly discredited. You are playing the part of an unwitting goon marching behind our Supreme Court appointd absolute ruler wanna-be. Ya like that kakii colored shirt ya wearin so proudly?
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
There is NO right to privacy. There is a right to not be subject to UNREASONABLE searches and seizures. If there was a right to privacy, you could not have any searches and seizures.
Anything not listed as a right in the Constitution is not a Constitutional right. The government or states may pass laws creating "rights" so long as they do not conflict with the Constitution but that does not guarentee it.
It is wartime. Islamic radicals have declared war on us and carried out a series of attacks on 9/11 which killed more people than the attack on Pearl Harbor. It is not a conventional, traditional war but if we get lax, we will be attacked again. They have made that promise. We have not figured out what to do about it yet, we may never figure that out but doing nothing won't fix it.
permanentjuan,
I understand what the Constitution is. It is the law of our land. It is subject to interpretation. It is also fairly easy to understand if you don't try to put a political spin on it. It is good to try to examine it in the context in which it was written 200 years ago and not to put it into the context of todays times. It is a briliantly written document, one which is capable of standing the test of time if it is not twisted out of context by activist judges.
In the case of privacy, it means exactly what it says, you are free from unreasonable searches and seizures. This prevents the government from unreasonably entering your personal life. There are guidelines on how they may do so and what is and is not unreasonable. These are determined by law. Law is written by the Legislative branch, not the Judicial branch of government.
The concept "right of privacy" didn't exist as such until Roe vs Wade. That has been documented many times and is easily found. As that occured in the 1960's it is not "throughout the history of our court system". It is since the 1960's when judicial activism became more influencial.
The "right" of privacy is an impossibility for the simple reason that your privacy can easily infringe on your neighbor's privacy and vise versa. You don't like loud music, your neighbor does. If there was a right to privacy, the government could not pass any law to regulate the loudness of the music, yet there are laws in nearly every town regulating the decible level and/or the times music can be played. Mainly because the people (majority) decided what is reasonable and unreasonable.
The legislative branch creates our laws. We elect the legislative branch. We in effect through our legislators are who determines what is a reasonable or unreasonable law. I do not consider the Patriot Act to be unreasonable and there are many that share that opinion. If you feel otherwise, vote at the ballot box and make a difference.
Posts: 559 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
You don't even understand the Presidential election process. The President was appointed to the Supreme Court according to you. Can't happen, didn't happen, another lie spread by the left.
Posts: 559 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
bdgee, you could put that a little more politely
the right to privacy issue has been under attack because of Roe V Wade... ( i find it odd for conservatives to go after the right to privacy tho, it seems like a paradox)
essentially? what a woman and her doctor is between them and God... same as suicide IMO... it's none of my business what they do...
In MD? there was a constitutionally tested law on the books for years and years that forbids recording your OWN conversations with someone else unless they KNOW and AGREE... the right ot privacy is not in question, it has been attacked under a specific agenda to reverse Roe V Wade, and many other rights will be lost if that fight is succesful under these terms
if you didn't have the righ to privacy? the 4th ammnedmendment wouldn't be in there... it is plain, the govt has to have and SHOW cause to go poking your affairs...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
Exactly, the government has to show cause. But you don't have absolute privacy, that is what a RIGHT would be. You have the right to reasonable privacy but not privacy itself.
Posts: 559 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
you should read the patriot act 2 if you believe that...
the requirement to show cause is GONE.....
who is supposed to determine what reasonable is?
the stats on the war on terror are abyssmal...
i don't have a problem with them "spying" on US citizens, i only have a problem with the fact that there is supposed to be checks and balances, the checks and balances are disappearing fast, and that is what "they" mean when they accuse Bush of becoming a dictator... Bush vows to continue eavesdropping in U.S. By David E. Sanger The New York Times
SUNDAY, DECEMBER 18, 2005 WASHINGTON President George W. Bush has acknowledged that he ordered the National Security Agency to conduct an electronic eavesdropping program in the United States without first obtaining warrants, and he said he would continue the highly classified program because it was "a vital tool in our war against the terrorists."
it makes no sense to avoid the warrants, they are provided for in the patriot act
Bush may not intend to? but at minimum he is "paving the way" for a dictator to take control.... just as Clinton was when he was trying to get rid of private gun ownership....
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by permanentjaun: Aragorn -
Our right to privacy is unwritten yet understood in our Bill of Rights and it's interpretations throughout the history of our court system.
With no intent to disagree with your other comments, I wanted to point out this one error, that is a common false assumption about the Constitution.
I don't think (I haven't checked closely and I don't have Glass...'s search tool to help) the term "privacy" appears in the Constitution. But then neither does the term "speed limit" or the term "rape" (and I point out, while I'm at it, that the term "freedom of religion" is not to be found in the Constitution).
It is not necessary for a thing to be identified by exact name or specific description in the Constitution (or elsewhere, for that matter) in order for the Constitution to make definite that that thing is or is not permitted or restricted.
In declaring that various "private" places and papers and situations are off limits to the Government without a warrant and that warrants will be issued only upon the sworn testimony of a reliable witness that some illegal thing, whether by Constitutional mandate or by laws legally passed, is or was in flow (it doesn't allow inspection for supposed or future wrongs, even by warrant).
The Constitution has declared that we, individually and collectivel, are not subject to the unwarranted scrutiny of the Government. Indeed, it grants to us the right to say "No, Government, and any or all of your agents, I have the right to not allow you in and I have the right to refuse to tell you what private things I do or think!" That is a right given to the people by the Constitution!.
That is a right to keep private things and to do private things. That is a right to privacy!Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In fact law is "written" by the judicial branch. That is almost the entire point of the judicial branch. Cases go to the Supreme Court because there are strong arguements for either side. Thus, the Supreme Court decides on the case and, in doing so, determines the meaning of the law. For example, how I noted how although affirmative action is racism in some way, it is still legally allowed under the decisions in the Supreme Court.
The Constitution is also not easily understood, again which is why the courts must decide it's meaning and power. For example, seperation of church and state. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
Is that what it really means? What about when a church wishes to enlarge its church to allow for a larger service? City of Boerne v. Flores. More famously, how the government doesn't allow the use of peyote, hallucigenic drug, in certain Native American religious rituals. Or how about in Wisconsin v. Yoder, that even though the state has a compelling interest to mandate education to it's youth, the Amish religions belief of traditional education being contradictoy to their religion was more useful to the amish children.
The constitution is not at all what it meant 200 years ago. The genius of the document is that it is able to be changed/amended. There is more that is in the document that isn't written than what is literally written. As shown in the cases I've shown you, the constitution isn't literal in that situations will come about where it is not clear what is meant by the constitution.
You've also said it yourself. "In the case of privacy, it means exactly what it says, you are free from unreasonable searches and seizures. This prevents the government from unreasonably entering your personal life. There are guidelines on how they may do so and what is and is not unreasonable. These are determined by law. Law is written by the Legislative branch, not the Judicial branch of government."
The United States already has laws to regulate search and seizure, as well as many other aspects of the Patriot Act. Why do we need the Patriot Act if we already have the laws? The uproar of the Patriot Act is that it is unconstitutional.
There are very few instances where right to privacy infringes on others right to privacy. The case of "loud music" you're giving a bad example. That is not the right to privacy, but simply disturbing the peace. You are allowed to listen to whatever music you like. You'll then say, "but I don't have the right of privacy to listen to music at 130 db's. That's infringing on my right to privacy." Since the law of regulating noise levels does not target any group and applies to everyone, then it is allowed.
For example, two men are allowed to engage in sodomy. They're not allowed to do this in a public street downtown NYC. Why? Indecent exposure, disturbing the peace, etc. whatever. They're not allowed to engage in sodomy on a lublic street just like a heterosexual couple is not allowed to.
The 1960's are our courts history. Although privacy didn't become a headliner till then, it began many years before that. Since the Supreme Court decides on the interpretations, they use precedence, history, and legal doctrine to determine the meaning. Part of the Roe v. Wade dealt with equal protection of the laws. Issues regarding that were decided in cases before Roe v. Wade. It's not just, let's decide on privacy. It's an evolution.
Our history and precedence has shown that the Patriot Act is unconstitutional.
Posts: 1504 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anything not listed as a right in the Constitution is not a Constitutional right. The government or states may pass laws creating "rights" so long as they do not conflict with the Constitution but that does not guarentee it.
that is absolutely incorrect... read the ninth amendment an analysis Ninth Amendment - Unenumerated Rights
Amendment Text | Annotations
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by permanentjaun: Aragorn -
Our right to privacy is unwritten yet understood in our Bill of Rights and it's interpretations throughout the history of our court system.
With no intent to disagree with your other comments, I wanted to point out this one error, that is a common false assumption about the Constitution.
I don't think (I haven't checked closely and I don't have Glass...'s search tool to help) the term "privacy" appears in the Constitution. But then neither does the term "speed limit" or the term "rape" (and I point out, while I'm at it, that the term "freedom of religion" is not to be found in the Constitution).
No you just misread what I said. Aragorn is the one saying that since right to privacy is not literally written in the constitution it doesn't exist. I know that it is not literally in there. Through interpretations of certain amendments and articles it is most certainly in there, as determined by the Supreme Court in many instances. Matt
Posts: 1504 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
I would tend to agree with you that there is no reason to avoid the warrents unless it had something to do with time constraints. We don't know the specifics of why they went that way. Perhaps they felt the threat was imminent and in that case, precident has already been set on that as well.
permanentjuan,
I suggest you read up on the three branches of our government. The judicial branch does not write law it interprets law.
I have to differ that the Constitution is not easily interpreted. The Bill of Rights are very clear. They were written so the people would understand them and should not require interpretation. In general, these are the specific portions of the Constitution that impact us the most on a day to day basis.
That the Constitution is not what it was 200 years ago is why we have so many problems with law today. There is a very specific amendment process. That is how the Constitution is changed, not through different justices trying to apply today's meanings to ideals of the past.
The 1960's are our history true, but to ignore the history prior to the 1960's is where many error. I find it very curious as to how many of our current "issues" or problems with the Constitution originated in the 1960's and are now accepcted as doctrine when for the previous 180 years of our history they were not.
I also tend to believe that the closer to the time a document is written, the more accurate the meaning of that document will be. To examine what the true meaning of the Constitutions intent is, I don't look to the 1960's, I look to the early years of the nation. There are many practices which were common then which are condemned now. Which is correct?
Posts: 559 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Apparently you didn't understand what I meant when I put the word written in quotation marks. Yes the legislative branch literally writes and passes the law, but it is our judicial branch which interprets their meaning. In doing so, they "write" or define the law.
"I also tend to believe that the closer to the time a document is written, the more accurate the meaning of that document will be. To examine what the true meaning of the Constitutions intent is, I don't look to the 1960's, I look to the early years of the nation. There are many practices which were common then which are condemned now. Which is correct? "
I don't know what you're saying when you say there are many practices which were common then but are condemned now. Doesn't that undermine your arguement that it is better to look at the meaning of the constitution as it was meant to be in the beginning rather than in the 1960's, for example.
The Court's must look at the constitution in terms of the most recent times. They can not use the same legal aspects as from back then. Over the years our rights have been defined by court cases. If a case defines our right in the 1960's, even though it wasn't defined in the 1800's, are we to ignore such a right? If that is the case then you might as well welcome segregation, slavery, and other nasty things back into your life as well as saying goodbye to certain rights such as habeas corpus.
I can't understand how you can say that the Bill of Rights are easy to understand. For example, how is it that affirmative action is allowed in the University of Michigan's Law school but not their general undergraduate program? Is that defined in the constitution?
How and when are certain forms of speech not allowed. There are types that are not allowed.
Not everything is in the constitution.
How can "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" clearly mean anything. If I begin a religion that accepts cannibalism as a form of practice, then the government restricts my religion so that I can not perform cannibalism, are they not prohibiting the free exercise of my religion? The world is too complex for it to be governed by a simple document. History, precedence, and legal doctrine all have to be taken into account to determine the meaning of the constitution and how things should be ruled.
Posts: 1504 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
For example, in Olmstead v. United States, 32 one of the two premises underlying the holding that wiretapping was not covered by the Amendment was that there had been no actual physical invasion of the defendant's premises; where there had been an invasion, a technical trespass, electronic surveillance was deemed subject to Fourth Amendment restrictions. 33 The Court later rejected this approach, however. ''The premise that property interests control the right of the Government to search and seize has been discredited. . . . We have recognized that the principal object of the Fourth Amendment is the protection of privacy rather than property, and have increasingly discarded fictional and procedural barriers rested on property concepts.'' 34 Thus, because the Amendment ''protects people, not places,'' the requirement of actual physical trespass is dispensed with and electronic surveillance was made subject to the Amendment's requirements. 35
interestingly? the seizure of proeprty in drug cases has severe constitutional problems too... the constitution is being dismantled one slow step at a time, and for various reasons, liberals are no more or less guilty than conservatives...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
The judicial branch neither writes or defines law. They can only rule on what is Constitutional or un-Constitutional.
For example abortion was not legalized because of Roe vs Wade. It simply means that that particular law was found to be unconstitutional. There is no law which actually legalizes abortion. Should the legislature pass a new law restricting abortion which is fully within their powers to do so, that will have to be judged seperately. I personally consider Roe vs Wade to be a bad ruling based on a combination of the tenth amendment, the one that seems to be the most ignored, and the false premise of a right to privacy.
What you imply is that the legislature passes a law, then the judiciary then determines what the legislature meant when they passed the law. Who knows better what they meant, the legislature that wrote it or the judiciary that interprets it?
It is the misconception that the judiciary writes law that is one of the problems we have today. There is a reason for the division of powers and why the judiciary is appointed rather than elected like the other two branches. The people elect the legislature and the executive branches to represent them and lead them respectively. The judiciary is seperate, to be away from the threat of politics in making their rulings. Yet even they can be removed by the Legislature through impeachment. No branch is absolute, all have specific functions. The judiciary is taking power away from the legislature and the legislature is letting them get away with it.
Who knows better what the meaning of the Constitution is, those that wrote it or those that interpret what they think they meant 200 years later. That's why it is more important to see how the early government treated the Constitution.
Practices common then and condemned now include government funding of religious schools, which essentially wipes out most peoples arguements of a seperation of church and state. There weren't many independant schools then and none were fully supported by the Government.
Affirmative action is unconstitutional. Any ruling allowing it is judicial activism. It is clear, 14th Amendment, equal protection clause. Slavery, women suffrage, etc were established or changed through amendments. Not through judicial activism or changing Constitutional values through changing times. How can you give one race special treatment without violating that clause?
Your cannibalism point is interesting but that impacts anothers life so is not the best example. The Government can regulate certain acts, murder and cannibalism being examples. It makes no difference if your religion advocates these or not. They are things which can cause harm to others. In general, the same applies to freedom of speech restrictions. They are written to protect other individuals and could be interpreted of being one constitutional right being cast against another.
Posts: 559 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
When presented with a case, the supreme court tends to know more about the law and what is right. The legislative branch doesn't look at precedence to write laws. They see a problem and they try to fix it. When a problem comes out of the law, we go to court. The courts then analyze where the problem is, if any rights are being infringed upon, is the infringing constitutional and worth it based on the motives of the state? There are many questions that the supreme court asks when analyzing each case and the laws involved.
Again, how are we supposed to relate a 200 year old document to the state at which we're in today? It is nearly impossible, although in rare cases is done, thus the courts rely on precedence found later on history rather than the beginning.
I don't get your point of seperation of church and state statement. How does that relate to what we're talking about?
Affirmative action is in fact constitutional. As determined by this case: http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/1541/ Judicial activism? It doesn't state that the applicants are accepted based on their race.
They're constitutional because, although they take take race into consideration, they are not the deciding factor. For example, if there are two identical applicants as far as grades, activities, and such, the school is allowed to decide based on race. They have a compelling interest to diversify their student body. They can still choose the majority race applicant.
The cannibalism example was for the religious freedoms we hold that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This was to illustrate that there are instances where the government does in fact prohibit the free exercise of religion. Thus we can not take the literal meaning of the written constitution.
Here is a question. Livestock such as cows are killed by the thousands if not millions each year. There are religions that practice the ritual sacrafice of animals. Cities, at times, are allowed to prohibit the practice and at other times, not allowed to. No person is being harmed, no endangered species are being killed, yet sometimes the government may prohibit the killing of the animals and thus infringe on these certain churches rights to free exercise.
How does the constitution define the rights and liberties in this situation?
Posts: 1504 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:What you imply is that the legislature passes a law, then the judiciary then determines what the legislature meant when they passed the law. Who knows better what they meant, the legislature that wrote it or the judiciary that interprets it?
If the legislature wants it to be clearly interpreted, they can write it thus.
When they don't? The judiciary *must* sift the evil from the good...
and sometimes they fail, too
I think what some may be overlooking is that *this system,* "our system" is based on accommodating incremental change. That is, "change" *is* built-in, so to speak, but not "Future-Shock" levels of change...
When big, major, societal-tectonics occur? wwwwoooowwwzeee: cultural vertigo, if not worse...
a good example of an intentionally poorly written law was the partial birth abortion law...the "right wingers" that wrote it and passed it KNEW it was unconstitutional because it deliberately ignored the HEALTH welfare of the mother.
why did they do this? PUBLICITY, to make everybody upset and point fingers at the "pro-abortion left"... the mothers have rights too... if they had written those rights into it? it PROBABLY would have passed constitutional muster.....
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
well, sure, 9/11 is an easily accessible example...but what's funny/sad is how *predictable* that was... I mean, you can almost "chart" it, from the B'nai Brith thing in DC, through the cyanide in LA-water...
terrorism on-shore is not new...
What's new is the Nazi-esque response, which is structurally predictable from system based on incremental change...
Put it this way: say we could wave a magic wand and promulgate a document as well crafted as the Constitution was in its day?
quote:Originally posted by permanentjaun: Aragorn -
Our right to privacy is unwritten yet understood in our Bill of Rights and it's interpretations throughout the history of our court system.
With no intent to disagree with your other comments, I wanted to point out this one error, that is a common false assumption about the Constitution.
I don't think (I haven't checked closely and I don't have Glass...'s search tool to help) the term "privacy" appears in the Constitution. But then neither does the term "speed limit" or the term "rape" (and I point out, while I'm at it, that the term "freedom of religion" is not to be found in the Constitution).
No you just misread what I said. Aragorn is the one saying that since right to privacy is not literally written in the constitution it doesn't exist. I know that it is not literally in there. Through interpretations of certain amendments and articles it is most certainly in there, as determined by the Supreme Court in many instances. Matt
Oh, I knew that. I just wanted to emphasize what you pointed out by adding some bits of reason and examples.
Insistant and constant claiming that in order to have some right, by the Constitution, requires an exact statement of it in the Constitution, by persons that in the next sentence insist that they have absolute "freedom of religion" or "freedom of speach" is logically absurd and hypocritical at best. But, because they say it over and over without correction, they come to believe it must be true, since there is no one pointing out the falacies.
Basically, the Constitution is a document written with two goals in mind....(1) to describe the basic structure of a government that, through what we have come to call "checks and ballances", will perpetually renew and define itself so as to remain a practical functioning benifit to the people and (2) to make certain that the Government remains ever the servant of the people.
Pure democracy, i.e., majority rule, possibly could have endured two and a half decades. The Republic, properly tended by the branches of Government, is now approaching two and a half centuries. It is not properly tended by a president that describes mimself as above the law. We might not make another two decades.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
""""It is not properly tended by a president that describes mimself as above the law. We might not make another two decades."""""
He never ever described Himself as above the Law. That is liberal slander at it's Best.They say that because they have lost soo much in the last 5 yrs.
Some people just won't understand!
Posts: 541 | From: Virginia | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, but he did define himself as above the law. You choose to ignore it. He does it often. Even more often, he has defined himself to be the sole interpreter of the law. That's a cute way to claim he doesn't place himself above the law........just place the law under him.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
The Supreme Court is made up of men. They make mistakes, the make rulings based on politics. Simply because they have ruled one way on a certain case does not mean they ruled correctly or Constitutionally. If you accept that they always rule correctly, you have just created the dictatorship many of you blame on Bush.
Affimative action is un-Constitutional. I could care less how the justices ruled, any law which gives preferential treatment to one person over another based upon sex, skin color or ethnicity is a violation of the 14th Amendment.
The government sponsorship of religious schools in the early years of the nation simply provide an example of what mis-interpreting or applying "todays" values to the Constitution can do. The document is a brilliant document. It is being torn apart by politics, applying "todays" values without going through the amendment process, etc and no longer has the ability to be a stable law. Activist judges have overturned the Constitution and when that document eventually fails, it will be the end of our freedoms. They are falling one by one, freedom OF religion being the most obvious.
Posts: 559 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Supreme Court is made up of humans yes. So is the rest of the government. They make rulings based on history, precedent, legal doctrine, and yes, politics.
In the case of the Patriot Act, what is it formed out of. History? You'll say yes based on what the government did in previous wars. When in fact in every instance the acts they did were unconstitutional and have even required the government to appease those that were afflicted.
Precedence? What legal precedence says the government is allowed to restrict our rights? In fact, the Constitution says that they're not allowed to.
You think my belief that the Supreme Court makes correct decisions almost all of the team is what dictatorship is. Which is worse, believing in a Supreme Court that makes extremely informed decisions based on many aspects, or believing in a government that is allowed to strip us of our rights whenever they decide to throw us in a war? The latter sure sounds like more of a dictatorship than the former.
You need to understand how the Supreme Court works. They don't make decisions merely on politics. It is a factor, but not at all the largest. They can't overturn a previous decision just because the current political environment calls for it.
You really should read a court ruling, the actual decision, on a major course. The thought process that goes through the judges heads is simply overwhelming. They provide the details of the case, how the case evolved over history, what the different sides of the case are, how each is right, how each is wrong, and many more aspects that many people do not think of.
In fact, the Supreme Court has overturned previous decisions. A lot of the times this happens because the new case asks the same question, but in a different matter. The supreme court is only there to answer the questions/cases in the form in which they are presented to them. Even if I believe that they are correct most of the time, I don't see how this comes anywhere close to creating a dictatorship. They can't create constitutionality or unconstitutionality as they please. It depends on the context of the case. That is not at all a dictatorship.
Again, no, affirmative action is not unconstitutional, so long as it is restricted. Schools are not allowed to set quotes, judge applicants solely on race, or give applicants preference over another based on skin. No where does it say that white applicants are always going to be the ones burdened by affirmative action.
Your last paragraph is just all over the place. How did government sponsorship of religious schools provide an example of what mis-interpreting the constitution can do? How did they misinterpret the constitution in that situation? To me it sounds like they blatantly disobeyed it.
How are our freedoms ending? How is our freedom of religion being attacked?
You are blatantly wrong. For example, ONLY EXAMPLE I DO NOT BELIEVE IN WHAT I AM ABOUT TO TYPE, I can walk outside of my house and say I am a white man. I hate all other people who are not white catholic moral people. I believe the government should institute a program to eradicate the jews, mexicans, blacks, asian, indian, all other minorities and those that do not believe in the catholic religion.
I am literally allowed to buy time on television and tell other white catholics to go buy a gun and go outside to shoot the first minority you see.
This is my freedom of speech, which IN FACT, has been given to me more by the Supreme Court than by the legislative branch. If you'd like to prove me otherwise, go right ahead.
You need to provide examples of how our freedoms are being attacked. Over the years, through Supreme Court rulings, they have developed tests for civil rights cases that actually make it harder for a law to be deemed constitutional if they possibly infringe on our rights.
This is why there is so much outrage with the Patriot Act. It is another blatant act on our rights as Americans. I don't know how you can say the Supreme Court is the one destroying our constitution and our rights, yet you support a bill that inherently does so blatantly.
If you want your freedoms protected you will support the reversing of the patriot act. You are very confused if you ask me. You should really read up on what the Supreme Court has done through out our history to secure our constitutional rights and liberties.
Posts: 1504 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
Just think what his sock puppet, Chris Cox, is doing over at the SEC.
Boys, boys, check the Foreign Surveillance Act.
There is already a law in effect which allows warrantless "domestic spying" for seventy-two hours. Bush knows this. He does not need to spy on Americans through unlawful means.
He is not following the law, most likely, because he has been gaining information, illegally. Should he abide by our laws, he would be exposed for use of illegal means to spy on people.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
