Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Why Justice Kennedy ought to be impeached by Congress!

Why Justice Kennedy ought to be impeached by Congress!
Thread Tools
johnwk
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Aug 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2015, 05:37 PM
 
Today, Justice Kennedy has established beyond any reasonable doubt that he will not follow some of the most fundamental rules of constitutional construction, nor the text of our Constitution or its documented legislative intent which gives context to its language.

In regard to the text of the 14th Amendment which Justice Kennedy asserts is violated when a state refuses to issue a marriage license to a same sex couple, the fact is, the language of the 14th Amendment is crystal clear:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Note that a state is forbidden to deny any person [singular] within its jurisdiction “the equal protection of the laws.”

Those words simply declare that whatever laws a state passes, any person is to get the equal protection of those laws. It mentions nothing about forbidding state laws which make distinctions based upon sex!

Now that we have established what the text of the 14th amendment declares, let us documented the the legislative intent of the 14th Amendment, which was summarized as follows by one of its supporters.


“Its whole effect is not to confer or regulate rights, but to require that whatever of these enumerated rights and obligations are imposed by State laws shall be for and upon all citizens alike without distinctions based on race or former condition of slavery…It permits the States to say that the wife may not testify, sue or contract. It makes no law as to this. Its whole effect is to require that whatever rights as to each of the enumerated civil (not political) matters the States may confer upon one race or color of the citizens shall be held by all races in equality…It does not prohibit you from discriminating between citizens of the same race, or of different races, as to what their rights to testify, to inherit &c. shall be. But if you do discriminate, it must not be on account of race, color or former conditions of slavery. That is all. If you permit a white man who is an infidel to testify, so you must a colored infidel. Self-evidently this is the whole effect of this first section. It secures-not to all citizens, but to all races as races who are citizens- equality of protection in those enumerated civil rights which the States may deem proper to confer upon any race.” ___ SEE: Rep. Shellabarger, Cong. Globe, 1866, page 1293

It should also be noted that the Court, under our Constitution, is to follow the rules of common law when handing down its decisions. Under the rules of common law, long standing customs are protected. In this case, a long standing custom, which dates back to the founding of our Country, marriage was considered to be a union between one male and one female.

Finally, Justice Kennedy also ignore the most fundamental rule of constitutional construction which is stated as follows:

The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.-- numerous citations omitted__ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.

There is nothing in the 14th Amendment to remotely suggest it was intended to forbid the states to refuse to issue a marriage license to same sex couples.

Now, why is the Congress of the United States not drawing up Articles of Impeachment for a Justice on our Supreme Court who blatantly has violated the most fundamental rules of constitutional construction in order to impose his personal sense of fairness, reasonableness, or justice upon the entire population of these United States?

And particularly, why is the Republican Party Leadership not taking the initiative to start the impeachment process to rid ourselves of a Justice who has engaged in judicial tyranny?

JWK



"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2015, 08:36 PM
 
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2015, 11:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by johnwk View Post

Those words simply declare that whatever laws a state passes, any person is to get the equal protection of those laws. It mentions nothing about forbidding state laws which make distinctions based upon sex!

Any person.
You do realise that a Constitution essentially bans other legislative branches from making laws which would overrule it? Thats kinda the point of having one.

Also sex ≠ sexual preference. In case you were confused.

Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
Now that we have established what the text of the 14th amendment declares, let us documented the the legislative intent of the 14th Amendment, which was summarized as follows by one of its supporters.
Legislative intent means jack shit in a courtroom.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
johnwk  (op)
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Aug 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2015, 11:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Any person.
You do realise that a Constitution essentially bans other legislative branches from making laws which would overrule it? Thats kinda the point of having one.

Also sex ≠ sexual preference. In case you were confused.



Legislative intent means jack shit in a courtroom.

Legislative intent means jack shit in a courtroom? Thank you for your opinion but...
The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it.
_____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS'N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

Have you ever studied constitutional law?

JWK


The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.--- numerous citations omitted__ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2015, 02:48 AM
 
Beware absolute interpretations. Many constitutional contexts today (GPS tracking, phone bugs, health care) could not possibly have involved the Founders' intent. Courts must consider contexts other than those present at the beginning. Also, the Founder you quoted (Rep. Shellabarger, Cong. Globe, 1866) was born after the Constitution was written, so he wasn't a Founder after all. Hearsay - his opinion on intent is no better than any other non-Founder.

Why do you suggest impeachment of Justice Kennedy, and not the other four who voted with him? Like blaming one player for a lost game, were there not eight other players on the team?

Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971)
This is suspicious. If he really served on the Supreme Court for 85 years, and was nominated as an adult, he was at least 103 when he retired. Impressive if true.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2015, 02:59 AM
 
Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
Today, Justice Kennedy has established beyond any reasonable doubt that he will not follow some of the most fundamental rules of constitutional construction, nor the text of our Constitution or its documented legislative intent which gives context to its language.

*snip*
You're mad because all "the queers" can now be married and treated like real people, aren't you? What bothers you most, the sodomy or the razor burn?
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
johnwk  (op)
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Aug 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2015, 09:36 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
You're mad because all "the queers" can now be married and treated like real people, aren't you? What bothers you most, the sodomy or the razor burn?
What I am concerned about is our Constitution being violated by those who took an oath to support and defend it. Were you not concerned by the Kelo decision when Justice Stevens admitted he would not enforce the meaning of "public use" in our Constitution, in order to allow private property to be taken from its owner and transferred to a profit making corporation?


JWK

"...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
     
johnwk  (op)
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Aug 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2015, 09:42 AM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
Also, the Founder you quoted (Rep. Shellabarger, Cong. Globe, 1866) was born after the Constitution was written, so he wasn't a Founder after all.
In fact, he was one of the founders of the 14th Amendment which is under discussion.

JWK

The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.--- numerous citations omitted__ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.
     
Rumor
Moderator
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the verge of insanity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2015, 10:51 AM
 
I'm more concerned with Scalia coming out saying the SCOTUS is a farce.
I like my water with hops, malt, hops, yeast, and hops.
     
johnwk  (op)
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Aug 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2015, 11:00 AM
 
The myth of the 14th Amendment forbidding distinctions based upon sex


In delivering the Court’s opinion in the Virginia Military Institute (VMI) case, decided June 26, 1996, which commanded the Institute to accept women by citing the 14th Amendment as forbidding sex discrimination, Ginsburg pointed to previous Supreme Court rulings and asserted a party seeking to uphold government action which makes a distinction based upon sex must establish an "exceedingly persuasive justification" In addition, Ginsburg noted, “The justification must be genuine, not hypothesized or invented post hoc in response to litigation. And it must not rely on overbroad generalizations about the different talents, capacities, or preferences of males and females.”

But the fact remains, Ginsburg, in delivering the opinion, never established that under the 14th Amendment the people of America decided to prohibit distinctions based upon gender in addition to their intentional prohibition against state legislation based upon “race and color”! And, the fact remains, Justice Ginsburg couldn’t establish this constitutional prohibition (sex discrimination) because time and again during the debates which framed the 14th Amendment the intended prohibition against discrimination was identified as being limited to discrimination based upon “race, color, or former condition of slavery”, and only intended to apply in a very narrow area and protect the inalienable right of Blacks: “to make and enforce contracts, to sue...to inherit, purchase...property as was then enjoyed by white citizens. “Congress did not assume...to adjust what may be called the social rights of men...but only to declare and vindicate these fundamental rights.”___ see the Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3,22 (1883)

The argument that the wording in the 14th Amendment: (a)“all persons”, (b)"No State shall make any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of United States.", (c) "[N]or deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws", as being evidence the 14th Amendment was intended to forbid distinctions based upon sex, or intended to be a universal rule to bar every imaginable type of discrimination, such as in Martin vs. PGA Tour, and also include discrimination based upon sex, falls flat on its face when reading the words of next Amendment to the Constitution!

This Amendment (the 15th) prohibits a new type of discrimination not covered by the 14th Amendment! It prohibits discrimination, or to be more accurate, prohibits the right of voting to be denied or abridged on account of “race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” The intent of the 15th Amendment clearly being to enlarge the intended prohibition on state legislated race-based discrimination, enlarging it to include the prohibition at the voting booth ---forbidding discrimination at the voting booth to be based upon “race, color, or previous condition of servitude“, while gender, and in particularly females, were not yet included in the protection.

The argument that the 14th Amendment prohibits state distinctions based upon gender, becomes even weaker when reading the 19th Amendment which specifically forbids a new kind of discrimination. In this Amendment, the People of America decide to forbid gender discrimination [the discrimination mentioned by Ginsburg] but only extend the prohibition with respect to the right to vote being “denied or abridged” on account of “sex”

If the 14th Amendment prohibited every kind of discrimination, including discrimination based upon sex as Ginsburg alleged in the VMI Case, then why were these subsequent Amendments added to the Constitution after the adoption of the 14th Amendment?


Finally, why would there have been a proposed and so-call equal rights amendment attempted to be added to the Constitution of the United States in the 1980’s to prohibit sex discrimination and which never received the required number of ratifying States, if the 14th Amendment already prohibited discrimination based upon sex as Ginsburg alleges?

The bottom line is, our SC, including Justice Ginsburg, is acting in rebellion to our written Constitution and the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted. Indeed, our Supreme Court is in fact using its office of public trust to impose a majority of the Court’s sense of justice and fairness without the consent of the governed as outlined in Article V of our Constitution.

JWK



"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2015, 11:24 AM
 
Originally Posted by Rumor View Post
I'm more concerned with Scalia coming out saying the SCOTUS is a farce.
Scalia's always thought that.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2015, 11:46 AM
 
Why does the U.S. seem to be the only country this obsessed over their constitution?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2015, 12:29 PM
 
Yeah. Why anyone would obsess over freedom of speech is beyond me.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2015, 01:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Yeah. Why anyone would obsess over freedom of speech is beyond me.

Do you think that the US is the only country that supports free speech?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2015, 05:14 PM
 
No, I think here it doesn't matter if the country supports it... because Constitution.
     
el chupacabra
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2015, 07:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
And particularly, why is the Republican Party Leadership not taking the initiative to start the impeachment process to rid ourselves of a Justice who has engaged in judicial tyranny?
Hopefully so they can get on with more important issues. Considering this nonsense has been going on for years... My question is why are my fellow conservatives so preoccupied with what gays do? They aren't asking for trillions of dollars in free handouts like many people do. They arent asking for obama phones, obama cars, obama energy, obama housing, obama internet or obamacare. All they asked for was a piece of paper which consolidates what would otherwise be a stack of paperwork to obtain the same privileges as everyone else. Shouldn't this rank pretty low on your list of constitutional atrocities? Ya'll asked for this when you allowed government to be involved in marriage. It's funny how republican vs democrat has just become a contest of who can use big government to bully other people around the most.
the largest problem for Americans today is they eat too much food and dont have enough work to do to keep their heart healthy
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2015, 09:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Why does the U.S. seem to be the only country this obsessed over their constitution?
Jim raised the same point in the gun control video.

"We've all got one, I don't know what it says...."

I assume its programmed into them along with all the pledge reciting and over-fondness for flags. In a way I applaud it, its nice to see people taking that much interest in the specifics of laws and rights. Sadly there are more than a few that take it too far, and treat it like a holy book. More concerned with following an old set of instructions to the letter than doing whats actually right.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2015, 10:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
"We've all got one, I don't know what it says...."
Oh, he's more of a bitch than I thought, very glad I didn't waste my time with that.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2015, 10:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by el chupacabra View Post
My question is why are my fellow conservatives so preoccupied with what gays do?
Because they are bigoted, ignorant scumbags?

My question is why people who aren't don't take enough offence to stop identifying along with those people as conservatives. I realise the term in its literal sense still applies, but the homophobia among other things has come to be quite synonymous with the Republican party thanks to all the wingnut candidates that run for president under their banner. One or two you could understand, but so far this year it seems to be almost all of them. You're not doing great when Donald Trump is your poster boy for tolerance and reason, but among the current crop he pretty much is.

I don't know what you can realistically do to stem that tide, but when you refer to them as 'your fellows' it gives little sense of much disapproval.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2015, 10:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Jim raised the same point in the gun control video.
I see you're on a first name basis with him?
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 28, 2015, 08:28 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I see you're on a first name basis with him?
Somehow I can't imagine he'd give a ****ing ****.

I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 28, 2015, 08:29 AM
 
Originally Posted by Rumor View Post
I'm more concerned with Scalia coming out saying the SCOTUS is a farce.
Its made a farce by its partisan nature. I recall seeing a graph where they basically vote overwhelmingly with their majority political leanings.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 28, 2015, 08:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Oh, he's more of a bitch than I thought, very glad I didn't waste my time with that.
So odd that you can so quickly go from enlightened posts mocking the OP's homophobia to sounding like an ignorant, insular so-and-so.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 28, 2015, 11:22 AM
 
Is this supposed to be a defense of Jefferies not knowing what's in his country's constitution?

Because it's a weird one.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 28, 2015, 12:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
So odd that you can so quickly go from enlightened posts mocking the OP's homophobia to sounding like an ignorant, insular so-and-so.
It's consistency in viewing individual rights instead of simply regurgitating the progressive narrative.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 28, 2015, 02:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
It's consistency in viewing individual rights instead of simply regurgitating the progressive narrative.
I'm not sure what calling someone a bitch and refusing to listen to what he says because you suspect it won't be in agreement with your own opinion has to do with individual rights.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 28, 2015, 02:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Is this supposed to be a defense of Jefferies not knowing what's in his country's constitution?

Because it's a weird one.
By all means criticise someone for that if you think its that important, but dismissing someone out of hand because you think they will say things you don't like, well why bother getting involved in any discussion or debate if you aren't prepared to listen and think?

Most countries citizens are less passionate about their countries constitutions than Americans are. Its an interesting point. Its arguably something that you guys could feel justifiably superior about without the rest of us rolling our eyes at you. Or its an abnormal phenomenon that drives a lot of political conflict in your country giving you problems that we don't have. Either way its interesting.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
johnwk  (op)
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Aug 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 28, 2015, 03:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by el chupacabra View Post
Hopefully so they can get on with more important issues. Considering this nonsense has been going on for years... t.
In case you haven't noticed, if our Constitution was enforced by our judges and Justices, instead of them engaging in judicial tyranny, many of the sufferings we now experience as a nation would not be there. That is why it is critical to impeach judges and Justices who use their office of public trust to impose the personal sense of justice and fairness rather than rule of law.


JWK


"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 28, 2015, 05:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
By all means criticise someone for that if you think its that important, but dismissing someone out of hand because you think they will say things you don't like, well why bother getting involved in any discussion or debate if you aren't prepared to listen and think?

Most countries citizens are less passionate about their countries constitutions than Americans are. Its an interesting point. Its arguably something that you guys could feel justifiably superior about without the rest of us rolling our eyes at you. Or its an abnormal phenomenon that drives a lot of political conflict in your country giving you problems that we don't have. Either way its interesting.
The reason our Constitution drives political conflict is because it's designed to. It puts express limits on the government, limits the government has and had been shown they have a desire to trample on. It not only assumes conflict between the government and the citizenry, it embraces it.

I posit the eye-rolling on the part of Europeans is an expression of the sunk cost fallacy. Our system is based on giving expansive rights to the citizenry and limited rights to the government. We think the Constitution is a big deal because that's the only means by which this state of affairs has happened.

At best, Europeans convince themselves this is what they have, but they really don't. Here in America, if a government official wants to go on your property without your express consent, they need a warrant from a judge.

Correct me if I'm wrong, all that takes in the UK is not paying your television fees.

See the difference?


If you've convinced yourself intrusion of that nature is just peachy, that's your sunk cost. Of course you're going to eye-roll at the people who point out having a constitutional protection against things of that nature has value.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 28, 2015, 06:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
In case you haven't noticed, if our Constitution was enforced by our judges and Justices, instead of them engaging in judicial tyranny, many of the sufferings we now experience as a nation would not be there. That is why it is critical to impeach judges and Justices who use their office of public trust to impose the personal sense of justice and fairness rather than rule of law.


JWK


"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968


Cut the bullshit, you just don't like gay marriage.

Several states, and now the supreme court have ruled in favor of gay marriage. This has been challenged legally for years now. Why should we believe that you know more about the constitution than all of the judges that came to these rulings?

I'm so tired of people on the internet invoking the constitution when stuff happens that they don't like. If you are some sort of constitution law academic, what do you expect to gain in debating this with people that aren't (like myself)? We can't verify your creds, so you're just some dude on the internet with an opinion. What logical reason do we have to trust your judgment over established experts (like our supreme court justices)?

The same goes for all of the climate change deniers.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 28, 2015, 06:51 PM
 
Wait... you mean these discussions we have here are just opinion?
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 28, 2015, 06:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The reason our Constitution drives political conflict is because it's designed to. It puts express limits on the government, limits the government has and had been shown they have a desire to trample on. It not only assumes conflict between the government and the citizenry, it embraces it.

I posit the eye-rolling on the part of Europeans is an expression of the sunk cost fallacy. Our system is based on giving expansive rights to the citizenry and limited rights to the government. We think the Constitution is a big deal because that's the only means by which this state of affairs has happened.

At best, Europeans convince themselves this is what they have, but they really don't. Here in America, if a government official wants to go on your property without your express consent, they need a warrant from a judge.

Correct me if I'm wrong, all that takes in the UK is not paying your television fees.

See the difference?


If you've convinced yourself intrusion of that nature is just peachy, that's your sunk cost. Of course you're going to eye-roll at the people who point out having a constitutional protection against things of that nature has value.


Except this is all smoke and mirrors.

The government wants citizens to feel that they have all of these freedoms and are special for having these, but our freedoms have been taken away in pretty important areas in a fairly stealthy fashion. For example, we don't have a choice over who can run for office, the corporations decide that. So, the government concedes some ground in some fairly small areas to make people feel like they are basking in freedom, while they take away our freedoms in other areas.

Is the net result of this vastly different than a European country or Canada? I'm not so sure.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 28, 2015, 06:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Except this is all smoke and mirrors.

The government wants citizens to feel that they have all of these freedoms and are special for having these, but our freedoms have been taken away in pretty important areas in a fairly stealthy fashion. For example, we don't have a choice over who can run for office, the corporations decide that. So, the government concedes some ground in some fairly small areas to make people feel like they are basking in freedom, while they take away our freedoms in other areas.

Is the net result of this vastly different than a European country or Canada? I'm not so sure.
It depends on the liberty in question and how well the protections are written.

I'm not sure I understand your argument though. Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but it sounds like "because the government will enroach anyway, why bother?"
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 28, 2015, 07:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
It depends on the liberty in question and how well the protections are written.

I'm not sure I understand your argument though. Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but it sounds like "because the government will enroach anyway, why bother?"

My argument is that we're not all that special in having a constitution, and we aren't necessarily more free than European nations - to me it depends on what sort of freedoms you value.

I also think that many Americans are being manipulated into embracing these ideas of personal freedom when we are all very dependent on each other and the government for the tools we use in our lives - this is called living in a modern society. We are selective and inconsistent about challenging this encroachment, perhaps based on what we hear from various media sources and politicians. We should challenge all encroachment if nothing more to redefine what sort of society we want to live in, but this is too shaped by strange ideological and emotional dogma rather than sober analysis.

This gun debate is a great example of this. If we all want to reduce the gun violence in our society, why is the mere concept of discussing changes to gun control a complete non-starter for a certain population? It's not rational, it's emotional. At this point perhaps any change would have minimal results and be too late, but...
     
johnwk  (op)
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Aug 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 28, 2015, 08:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
In case you haven't noticed, if our Constitution was enforced by our judges and Justices, instead of them engaging in judicial tyranny, many of the sufferings we now experience as a nation would not be there. That is why it is critical to impeach judges and Justices who use their office of public trust to impose the personal sense of justice and fairness rather than rule of law.


JWK


"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968

Cut the bullshit, you just don't like gay marriage.

Several states, and now the supreme court have ruled in favor of gay marriage. This has been challenged legally for years now. Why should we believe that you know more about the constitution than all of the judges that came to these rulings?

I'm so tired of people on the internet invoking the constitution when stuff happens that they don't like. If you are some sort of constitution law academic, what do you expect to gain in debating this with people that aren't (like myself)? We can't verify your creds, so you're just some dude on the internet with an opinion. What logical reason do we have to trust your judgment over established experts (like our supreme court justices)?

The same goes for all of the climate change deniers.
I have not posted any BS, and you have not offered any rebuttal to what I have posted. Is that your way to discuss the issue?

My contention is, the majority opinion of the Court is not supported by the text of the Constitution including the 14th Amendment, nor consistent with the congressional debates covering the 14th Amendment when it was framed which means, the majority opinion is not in harmony with the legislative intent of the 14th Amendment.

The Court has made a number of statements, but has not established that the 14th Amendment forbids a state to make distinctions in law based upon sex, or forbids a state to refuse to issue a marriage license to a same sex couple.

So, what does the 14th Amendment actually state? There are a number of specific requirements which a state must abide by listed in the 14th Amendment.

“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;”

Privileges and immunities are created by government. So, they have to first be created before they can be abridged.

“nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;”

Each state creates its own due process but no state may deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without their receiving the due process created by the state.

“nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Whatever a State’s laws are, no person may be denied the equal protection of those laws.

Now, what wording in the 14th Amendment forbids a State to make distinctions in law based upon sex? And, what wording in the 14th Amendment forbids a state to refuse to issue a marriage licenses to a same sex couple?

JWK


The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it.
_____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS'N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 28, 2015, 08:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
My argument is that we're not all that special in having a constitution, and we aren't necessarily more free than European nations - to me it depends on what sort of freedoms you value.
I tend towards valuing them all, so I'm going to praise the Constitution for the liberties and freedoms it attempts to guarantee, just as I'll praise European nations for the liberties they attempt to guarantee.

I'll likewise castigate European nations for freedoms they curtail, as I will with my own country.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 28, 2015, 08:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The reason our Constitution drives political conflict is because it's designed to. It puts express limits on the government, limits the government has and had been shown they have a desire to trample on. It not only assumes conflict between the government and the citizenry, it embraces it.
I was thinking more about conflict between citizens arguing various specifics, nuances, wordings and intentions etc.

Originally Posted by subego View Post
I posit the eye-rolling on the part of Europeans is an expression of the sunk cost fallacy. Our system is based on giving expansive rights to the citizenry and limited rights to the government. We think the Constitution is a big deal because that's the only means by which this state of affairs has happened.
The eye-rolling is for loud patriotism and self-promotion that we hear from time to time. True or not, there is a conception that while we all run around grumbling about how shit our respective countries are for various reasons, you guys only ever talk about how great yours is. "This great nation" this, and 'greatest nation in the world' that. That ****ing brain-meltingly cheesy speech the president gives in Independence Day when America saves the world and everyone else was just sitting on their asses waiting for you to show them how it was done. I'm sure you can see what I mean.

Originally Posted by subego View Post
At best, Europeans convince themselves this is what they have, but they really don't. Here in America, if a government official wants to go on your property without your express consent, they need a warrant from a judge.

Correct me if I'm wrong, all that takes in the UK is not paying your television fees.

See the difference?
I can but I'm afraid you are in fact wrong. We have these TV detector vans which claim to be able to tell when are watching your TV by parking outside your house and using some magic technology or other to detect it. This is probably true nowadays but they are screwed because there is all manner of ways to watch things that are difficult for humans to differentiate from live broadcast television when they are in your living room. From a fuzzy image taken through a wall by some kind of EM scanner, I doubt they could tell a TV show apart from a console game any more. They only ever traded on fear of a myth as far as I know.
I digress. The TV licensing people have never been permitted to enter premises without warrants. When I was at Uni, they used to specifically tell us not to let anyone into a dorm building unless at least one of them also had one of the magnetic keys required to get in. Just one of the reasons they gave was that the TV guys could get you for non-payment of license fees but only if someone else let them in. They had no right to insist on entry however.
To my knowledge the only non-law enforcement who can enter your premises without permission are court bailiffs. This typically happens when a debtor has sued you for non-payment and its gone through the usual private debt collector channels without being resolved, or when you owe money to the court/government/local council for something. These guys are court employees or court=appointed, so they only come with warrants too. And they tend to bring cops to oversee if they plan to force entry.


Originally Posted by subego View Post
If you've convinced yourself intrusion of that nature is just peachy, that's your sunk cost. Of course you're going to eye-roll at the people who point out having a constitutional protection against things of that nature has value.
Like I say, criticising others for being less constitutionally-minded might be one thing we don't roll our eyes at. A roundabout way of saying that you might have a point for levelling such criticism.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 28, 2015, 09:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
I have not posted any BS, and you have not offered any rebuttal to what I have posted. Is that your way to discuss the issue?

My contention is, the majority opinion of the Court is not supported by the text of the Constitution including the 14th Amendment, nor consistent with the congressional debates covering the 14th Amendment when it was framed which means, the majority opinion is not in harmony with the legislative intent of the 14th Amendment.
Again, what do you hope to accomplish here? If this were me posting this, would you be swayed by some random person on the internet (me) disputing the outcome of these judicial decisions?

I hate the outcome of Citizens United, it does not further the causes I believe in, but I don't believe in this idea of the judges being activist judges for their interpretations of the law. The appropriate course of action is to lobby for a constitutional amendment.
     
johnwk  (op)
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Aug 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 28, 2015, 10:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Again, what do you hope to accomplish here? If this were me posting this, would you be swayed by some random person on the internet (me) disputing the outcome of these judicial decisions?

I hate the outcome of Citizens United, it does not further the causes I believe in, but I don't believe in this idea of the judges being activist judges for their interpretations of the law. The appropriate course of action is to lobby for a constitutional amendment.
What do you hope to accomplish by posting in the forum? My intention is to show that the majority of the court engaged in judicial tyranny. And to answer your question, yes, I would be swayed if the argument was unassailable!



JWK
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 28, 2015, 11:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Wait... you mean these discussions we have here are just opinion?


Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
I'm not sure what calling someone a bitch and refusing to listen to what he says because you suspect it won't be in agreement with your own opinion has to do with individual rights.
Why should I listen? It's simply more ignorant views from non-Americans regarding a cultural issue they won't understand. None of us will change our minds over it.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 29, 2015, 06:43 AM
 
Lets add Ginsburg to that list.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 29, 2015, 08:27 AM
 
I kinda like Ginsburg, she reminds me of my great grandmother, right after the cheese started sliding off her cracker, if you know what I mean.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
johnwk  (op)
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Aug 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 29, 2015, 12:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Lets add Ginsburg to that list.
I agree with you completely! Let me explain.

One of the Supreme Court‘s “inventions” used to impose its will upon the people unknown to those who framed and ratified our Constitution, are various tests the court has created which are now used to subjugate and overcome the documented intentions and beliefs under which the various provisions of our Constitution have been adopted. These “tests” began to appear and gain a foothold during the Warren Court of the l960’s. One such test was the "rationality" test under which a law being challenged had to withstand the court’s judgment that the law in question was “rationally based” or “reasonable” to survive the court‘s review. Of course, this allowed the court to switch the subject from what is and what is not constitutional, to a question having nothing to do with its constitutionality. Whether rational or not, a law which violates the Constitution cannot be justified as being constitutional if it is rationally based! Likewise, if a law is not rationally based it is not the Court’s job to second guess the wisdom of the legislature! To do so is to usurp legislative authority and its prerogative, and ignore the separation of powers in our system of government.

For example, imaging for a moment that a black male was denied employment as a prison guard by a local state government based upon his race and the court, in spite of the 14th Amendment’s intended protection against state imposed race discrimination, upheld the denial of employment because the local government presented an “exceedingly persuasive justification” for not hiring the black male. This is what these tests are about, creating a platform for progressives on the Court to ignore the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted and impose their whims and fancies upon the people using flowery terms and phrases to justify ignoring the will of the people as expressed in a written Constitution!

By the early 1970’s the Court using a variety of invented “tests” [rationally based, compelling state interest, intermediate scrutiny, strict scrutiny, etc.], started, with impunity, to ignore the documented intentions under which our Constitution was adopted and went on to impose its own ideas of social justice and court-ordered social reforms. Some of the important cases which demonstrate the Court’s assumption of legislative power by using these newly created tests are Reed vs. Reed 404 U.S. 71 (1971), Frontiero vs Richardson 411 U.S. 677 (1973), and Craig v. Boren 429 U.S. 190 (1976).

It is also important to note that the ACLU and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who was a volunteer for the American Civil Liberties Union in the 1970’s, were both very active in these cases and assisted the court in engineering clever words and phrases in conjunction with “tests” which were designed to parse words and subjugate the very intentions and beliefs under which the 14th Amendment was adopted.

When Ginsburg became a member of the Supreme Court the ground work had already been laid with her help in establishing these despotic tests as part of the Court’s arsenal used by its progressive members to make the Constitution mean whatever they wished it to mean.

In delivering the Court’s opinion in the Virginia Military Institute (VMI) case, decided June 26, 1996, which commanded the Institute to accept women by citing the 14th Amendment as forbidding sex discrimination, Ginsburg pointed to previous Supreme Court rulings and the invented tests in question, and asserted a party seeking to uphold government action making a distinction based upon sex must establish an "exceedingly persuasive justification" In addition, Ginsburg noted, “The justification must be genuine, not hypothesized or invented post hoc in response to litigation. And it must not rely on overbroad generalizations about the different talents, capacities, or preferences of males and females.”

But the fact remains, Ginsburg, in delivering the opinion, never established that under the 14th Amendment the people of America decided to prohibit distinctions based upon gender in addition to their intentional prohibition against state legislation based upon “race and color”! And, the fact remains, Justice Ginsburg couldn’t establish this constitutional prohibition (sex discrimination) because time and again during the debates which framed the 14th Amendment the intended prohibition against discrimination was identified as being limited to discrimination based upon “race, color, or former condition of slavery”, and only intended to apply in a very narrow area and protect the inalienable right of Blacks: “to make and enforce contracts, to sue...to inherit, purchase...property as was then enjoyed by white citizens. “Congress did not assume...to adjust what may be called the social rights of men...but only to declare and vindicate these fundamental rights.”___ see the Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3,22 (1883)

The argument that the wording in the 14th Amendment: (a)“all persons”, (b)"No State shall make any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of United States.", (c) "[N]or deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws", as being evidence the 14th Amendment was intended to forbid distinctions based upon sex, or intended to be a universal rule to bar every imaginable type of discrimination, such as in Martin vs. PGA Tour and also include discrimination based upon sex, falls flat on its face when reading the words of next Amendment to the Constitution! This Amendment (the 15th) prohibits a new type of discrimination not covered by the 14th Amendment! It prohibits discrimination, or to be more accurate, prohibits the right of voting to be denied or abridged on account of “race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” The intent of the 15th Amendment clearly being to enlarge the intended prohibition on state legislated race based discrimination mentioned in the 14th Amendment, and enlarging it to include the prohibition at the voting booth ---forbidding discrimination at the voting booth to be based upon “race, color, or previous condition of servitude“, while gender, and in particularly females, were not yet included in the protection.

The argument that the 14th Amendment prohibits state discrimination based upon gender, becomes even weaker when reading the 19th Amendment which specifically forbids a new kind of discrimination. In this Amendment, the People of America decide to forbid gender discrimination [the discrimination mentioned by Ginsburg] but only extend the prohibition with respect to the right to vote being “denied or abridged” on account of “sex”

If the 14th Amendment prohibited every kind of discrimination, including discrimination based upon sex as Ginsburg alleged in the VMI Case, then why were these subsequent Amendments added to the Constitution after the adoption of the 14th Amendment?


Finally, why would there have been a proposed and so-call equal rights amendment attempted to be added to the Constitution of the United States in the 1980’s to prohibit sex discrimination but which never received the required number of ratifying States, if the 14th Amendment already prohibited discrimination based upon sex as Ginsburg alleges?

Bottom line is, our SC, including Justice Ginsburg, is acting in rebellion to our written Constitution and the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted. Indeed, our Supreme Court is in fact "legislating from the bench" so as to impose its own visions and court ordered social reforms using a variety of tests which switch the subject of a law’s constitutionality, to a question of the lawmakers wisdom. And, to meet the Court’s standards a law must be “reasonable“ and reflect what progressives on the Court arbitrarily fancy as social justice. In fact, a questioned law to pass Ginsburg’s test, must have an "exceedingly persuasive justification" and “The justification must be genuine, not hypothesized or invented post hoc in response to litigation”, regardless of whether or not the law is within the four corners of our Constitution which no longer appears to be an important factor to Ginsburg and her progressive friends on the Court.


JWK

Those who reject abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 29, 2015, 02:21 PM
 
Do you have a tl;dr?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 29, 2015, 04:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
I was thinking more about conflict between citizens arguing various specifics, nuances, wordings and intentions etc.



The eye-rolling is for loud patriotism and self-promotion that we hear from time to time. True or not, there is a conception that while we all run around grumbling about how shit our respective countries are for various reasons, you guys only ever talk about how great yours is. "This great nation" this, and 'greatest nation in the world' that. That ****ing brain-meltingly cheesy speech the president gives in Independence Day when America saves the world and everyone else was just sitting on their asses waiting for you to show them how it was done. I'm sure you can see what I mean.



I can but I'm afraid you are in fact wrong. We have these TV detector vans which claim to be able to tell when are watching your TV by parking outside your house and using some magic technology or other to detect it. This is probably true nowadays but they are screwed because there is all manner of ways to watch things that are difficult for humans to differentiate from live broadcast television when they are in your living room. From a fuzzy image taken through a wall by some kind of EM scanner, I doubt they could tell a TV show apart from a console game any more. They only ever traded on fear of a myth as far as I know.
I digress. The TV licensing people have never been permitted to enter premises without warrants. When I was at Uni, they used to specifically tell us not to let anyone into a dorm building unless at least one of them also had one of the magnetic keys required to get in. Just one of the reasons they gave was that the TV guys could get you for non-payment of license fees but only if someone else let them in. They had no right to insist on entry however.
To my knowledge the only non-law enforcement who can enter your premises without permission are court bailiffs. This typically happens when a debtor has sued you for non-payment and its gone through the usual private debt collector channels without being resolved, or when you owe money to the court/government/local council for something. These guys are court employees or court=appointed, so they only come with warrants too. And they tend to bring cops to oversee if they plan to force entry.




Like I say, criticising others for being less constitutionally-minded might be one thing we don't roll our eyes at. A roundabout way of saying that you might have a point for levelling such criticism.
My apologies for egregiously overstating the case with the TV inspectors. Consider the argument withdrawn.

I would say the loud patriotism you speak of deserves eye-rolling.

I'll crow about the superiority of enshrining liberties in a constitution, but that doesn't magically guarantee we do something good with it.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 29, 2015, 04:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Do you have a tl;dr?
Justices bad; Constitution good ?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 29, 2015, 04:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Justices bad; Constitution good ?
Impeachment better. Hey, hey, hey!
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 29, 2015, 04:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Why should I listen?
He's pretty funny.
I guess its also courteous to review the source material if you choose to join the discussion of it too.


Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
It's simply more ignorant views from non-Americans regarding a cultural issue they won't understand. None of us will change our minds over it.
Ignorant ≠ differing from your opinion.

Refusing to change your mind or position under any circumstances could more accurately be considered ignorant.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
johnwk  (op)
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Aug 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 29, 2015, 04:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Do you have a tl;dr?
Huh? What's that?

JWK
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 29, 2015, 05:03 PM
 
A summary.

It stands for "too long; didn't read".
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:56 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,