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 > Christine O' Donnell - ignorance of the US Constitution

Christine O' Donnell - ignorance of the US Constitution (Page 2)
Thread Tools
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 21, 2010, 11:41 PM
 
We have went to making fun of O'Donnell (often times, actually justifiable) to now having a reasonable and rational discussion as to what language in the first amendment means.

The prosecution rests....
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 21, 2010, 11:44 PM
 
Of course "...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" applies to the states as well. Therefore, a state shouldn't be able to make a law *drumroll* ...prohibiting the free exercise of religion. This is the level where this issue most often comes up.

And I find it highly interesting how all this time no one has been rushing to apply incorporation to the second amendment as well!
     
CreepDogg
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 21, 2010, 11:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
Of course "...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" applies to the states as well. Therefore, a state shouldn't be able to make a law *drumroll* ...prohibiting the free exercise of religion. This is the level where this issue most often comes up.
I agree. A big recent hubbub about a certain 'mosque' in NYC comes to mind. A bunch of nutcases really seemed to have their panties in a bunch about that one.

And I find it highly interesting how all this time no one has been rushing to apply incorporation to the second amendment as well!
Erm....the linked article references McDonald vs. Chicago which effectively extends incorporation to the Second Amendment. That ruling was just this year. Try to keep up, would ya?
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2010, 12:11 AM
 
Originally Posted by CreepDogg View Post
I agree. A big recent hubbub about a certain 'mosque' in NYC comes to mind. A bunch of nutcases really seemed to have their panties in a bunch about that one.
So it looks like we're all in agreement with Christine- no actual constitutional 'separation of church and state' other than the establishment of a state religion (expressly prohibited) actually exists.



Erm....the linked article references McDonald vs. Chicago which effectively extends incorporation to the Second Amendment. That ruling was just this year. Try to keep up, would ya?
Exactly, the ruling was just this year. And how long have their been state laws in direct violation of the 2nd amendment? You're always so quick to try and get in a 'gotcha' that you never comprehend what's actually been said.

But nice to see the left is now on board with no laws prohibiting expression of religion - IE: prayer in schools is perfectly fine and up to individuals to do as they see fit, as is a town displaying a nativity scene or even the ten commandments put up in some government office if someone wants it...

...and both federal and state laws attempting to gun control are as of 2010 unconstitutional!

So lefties are on board with this? Wow! I feel like we've really turned a corner! This is truly awesome news! So in the case of at least these two issues, we can all collectively move on now to other more pressing stuff?
     
CreepDogg
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2010, 12:22 AM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
So it looks like we're all in agreement with Christine- no actual constitutional 'separation of church and state' other than the establishment of a state religion (expressly prohibited) actually exists.
No. Decades of judiciary precedent on this topic says otherwise.

Exactly, the ruling was just this year. And how long have their been state laws in direct violation of the 2nd amendment? You're always so quick to try and get in a 'gotcha' that you never comprehend what's actually been said.
Did anyone dispute that? What precisely was said in dispute of that point? Apparently, the only 'gotchas' here are the ones you do to yourself.

But nice to see the left is now on board with no laws prohibiting expression of religion - IE: prayer in schools is perfectly fine and up to individuals to do as they see fit, as is a town displaying a nativity scene or even the ten commandments put up in some government office if someone wants it...

So lefties are on board with this? Wow! I feel like we've really turned a corner! This is truly awesome news! So in the case of at least these two issues, we can all collectively move on now to other more pressing stuff?
I think there's a pretty simple 'smell test' for this stuff. Replace 'Bible' with 'Qu'ran', 'Jesus' with 'Mohammed' or 'Buddha', etc. If you're still up for it, it's probably OK. If not, you're probably crossing a line.

Want prayer in school? If it's a quiet room where ANYONE can go and pray on their time, fine with me (actually, this is precisely what my employer does). If it's a sanctioned or 'forced' activity in the classroom, not so much. Do you want your kids' teachers forcing them to do Qu'ran prayers? If not, then Christian prayers probably don't pass the smell test either.

Same with religious artifacts in government offices. If you're good with a big gold Buddha out front and a few Muslim artifacts lying around, then I suppose the Ten Commandments would be OK.

See? This really isn't that difficult! Glad we've got it now, and can move on to that more pressing stuff!
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2010, 12:46 AM
 
Preach on brother Dogg!
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2010, 01:11 AM
 
Originally Posted by CreepDogg View Post
No. Decades of judiciary precedent on this topic says otherwise.
So please tell me where the constitution actually specifically outlines separation of church and state. It actually doesn't beyond (as I said) the establishment of a state religion.

Did anyone dispute that? What precisely was said in dispute of that point? Apparently, the only 'gotchas' here are the ones you do to yourself.
Oh please, stop acting stupid. You tried a snarky one-liner, only to prove you hadn't understood what I said. All this time, -certainly no one on the left- has been eager to apply incorporation to the 2nd Amendment. Now go back and read the list of dates again. 40's, 50's, 60's.. oh and the 2nd Amendment only a matter of months ago! Keep trying for a dumb 'gotcha' but I'm glad that now you libs can drop your usual historonics over the 2nd Amendment- now you've got no excuses. Gun control attempts by government at any level = unconstitutional. That means: lefties, no more whining about this issue and pushing for more gun control laws. And have we gotten rid of all the existing ones yet?



I think there's a pretty simple 'smell test' for this stuff. Replace 'Bible' with 'Qu'ran', 'Jesus' with 'Mohammed' or 'Buddha', etc. If you're still up for it, it's probably OK. If not, you're probably crossing a line.
Personally I dont' give a flying rat who prays to what or whom, however, or whenever, so long as they don't bother anyone else with it. In my view, only busybodies and ninnies ever get their panties in a bind over any of that stuff when it has no effect on them.

Want prayer in school? If it's a quiet room where ANYONE can go and pray on their time, fine with me (actually, this is precisely what my employer does). If it's a sanctioned or 'forced' activity in the classroom, not so much. Do you want your kids' teachers forcing them to do Qu'ran prayers? If not, then Christian prayers probably don't pass the smell test either.
Exactly- forced prayer would always be out. Of course, I don't recall where this was ever an actual issue. But leave people alone to practice as they please if they don't violate anyone else's rights or break any laws while doing so. Seems pretty simple to me, but then, I've never changed my view on this. I'm glad the left can finally get on board with this.

So no more crazy lawsuits from whiney atheists over the pledge or whatever feigned outrage? Awesome!

Same with religious artifacts in government offices. If you're good with a big gold Buddha out front and a few Muslim artifacts lying around, then I suppose the Ten Commandments would be OK.

See? This really isn't that difficult! Glad we've got it now, and can move on to that more pressing stuff!
EXACTLY! I feel like the left might be growing up a little bit! All this *finally* understanding of the constitution and how it actually applies... not just whining for bans on things like religious expression or firearms just because... if it's actually real and none of the usual bullshit whining over either comes again in the near future.. or heck, EVER... it's amazingly refreshing!
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2010, 08:18 AM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
Exactly- forced prayer would always be out. Of course, I don't recall where this was ever an actual issue. But leave people alone to practice as they please if they don't violate anyone else's rights or break any laws while doing so. Seems pretty simple to me, but then, I've never changed my view on this. I'm glad the left can finally get on board with this.
Are you saying you don't recall a time when children were forced to pray in school at the beginning of the day? I've heard arguments where it's removal is listed as an example of the moral decay that the whiney liberals are introducing to society.
     
CreepDogg
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2010, 08:50 AM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
So please tell me where the constitution actually specifically outlines separation of church and state. It actually doesn't beyond (as I said) the establishment of a state religion.
As has been pointed out repeatedly in this thread, if you're looking for those words in the constitution, you won't find them. However, the judiciary precedent that's been set establishes it as the practical application of the balance of the establishment and free exercise clause.

Oh please, stop acting stupid. You tried a snarky one-liner, only to prove you hadn't understood what I said. All this time, -certainly no one on the left- has been eager to apply incorporation to the 2nd Amendment. Now go back and read the list of dates again. 40's, 50's, 60's.. oh and the 2nd Amendment only a matter of months ago! Keep trying for a dumb 'gotcha' but I'm glad that now you libs can drop your usual historonics over the 2nd Amendment- now you've got no excuses. Gun control attempts by government at any level = unconstitutional. That means: lefties, no more whining about this issue and pushing for more gun control laws. And have we gotten rid of all the existing ones yet?
I'm not the one acting stupid. You claimed the 2nd amendment hadn't been incorporated. I simply pointed you to the relevant facts. I know facts are usually tough for you to digest, so I'll just chalk this little rant up to your 'indigestion' on this issue.

Personally I dont' give a flying rat who prays to what or whom, however, or whenever, so long as they don't bother anyone else with it. In my view, only busybodies and ninnies ever get their panties in a bind over any of that stuff when it has no effect on them.
So we're in agreement here. Great!

Exactly- forced prayer would always be out. Of course, I don't recall where this was ever an actual issue. But leave people alone to practice as they please if they don't violate anyone else's rights or break any laws while doing so. Seems pretty simple to me, but then, I've never changed my view on this. I'm glad the left can finally get on board with this.
Hm. I've never changed my view on this either. Nor have I seen anyone burned at the stake recently (or even arrested, for that matter) for being a Christian, a Muslim, a Buddhist, or, heck, even a witch. So what's the problem exactly?

So no more crazy lawsuits from whiney atheists over the pledge or whatever feigned outrage? Awesome!
I know. Let's check the 'smell test' here to see what's 'feigned'. Maybe they should make that phrase in the pledge 'One Nation, Under Allah' and make you say it. When you're good with that, just let me know. 'Til then, I think it's a fair discussion point.

EXACTLY! I feel like the left might be growing up a little bit! All this *finally* understanding of the constitution and how it actually applies... not just whining for bans on things like religious expression or firearms just because... if it's actually real and none of the usual bullshit whining over either comes again in the near future.. or heck, EVER... it's amazingly refreshing!
Oh, I've been here for quite a while. Haven't changed my views on this at all. So....welcome to the party, I guess!
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2010, 08:52 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
So what would our founders say about private citizens owning nuclear weapons?
They would probably be fine with it. You could peaceably assemble it in the privacy of your home. You would of course be responsible for any damages caused by use of the weapon. You would also need more than just a few permits.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2010, 10:50 AM
 
Originally Posted by CreepDogg View Post
As has been pointed out repeatedly in this thread, if you're looking for those words in the constitution, you won't find them. However, the judiciary precedent that's been set establishes it as the practical application of the balance of the establishment and free exercise clause.
CRASH'S continued harping on this point is yet another example of former Bush speechwriter David Frum's observation that conservatives have a "unique capacity to ignore unwelcome fact." The "Separation of Church and State" is a public policy logically necessitated by the actual text of the First Amendment. This is why the Supreme Court has upheld this policy as constitutional. The United States government is religiously neutral as this article from the Treaty of Tripoli makes clear ....

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
The treaty was submitted to the Senate by President John Adams and unanimously ratified on June 7, 1797 and signed by Adams, taking effect as the supreme law of the land, per the US Constitution, on June 10, 1797.

A nation can't be religiously neutral and favor one religion over others. And make no mistake about it ... "The United States was founded as a Christian nation" crowd wants Christianity favored. They day a public school led kids in a "prayer" out of the Qu'ran their panties would be in the mother of all bunches! And that is the fundamental reason why the "separation of Church and State" policy exists.

OAW
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2010, 01:35 PM
 
Being religiously neutral isn't being Atheist.
     
CreepDogg
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2010, 01:44 PM
 
Nor is it being any particular religion.
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2010, 01:46 PM
 
No one is arguing that the United States was founded on atheism, either.

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2010, 01:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey View Post
No one is arguing that the United States was founded on atheism, either.
Only CRASH has mentioned the word atheism on this page.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2010, 01:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
CRASH'S continued harping on this point is yet another example of former Bush speechwriter David Frum's observation that conservatives have a "unique capacity to ignore unwelcome fact." The "Separation of Church and State" is a public policy logically necessitated by the actual text of the First Amendment. This is why the Supreme Court has upheld this policy as constitutional.

The United States government is religiously neutral as this article from the Treaty of Tripoli makes clear ....



The treaty was submitted to the Senate by President John Adams and unanimously ratified on June 7, 1797 and signed by Adams, taking effect as the supreme law of the land, per the US Constitution, on June 10, 1797.

A nation can't be religiously neutral and favor one religion over others. And make no mistake about it ... "The United States was founded as a Christian nation" crowd wants Christianity favored. They day a public school led kids in a "prayer" out of the Qu'ran their panties would be in the mother of all bunches! And that is the fundamental reason why the "separation of Church and State" policy exists.

OAW
-Total strawman. Care to address the points brought up in this thread as opposed to addressing the "crowd that wants christianity favored" and what "they" might do?

-No one is arguing against the neutrality of the US government. Neutrality doesn't mean abstaining in every instance from any or all religion.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2010, 03:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
-Total strawman. Care to address the points brought up in this thread as opposed to addressing the "crowd that wants christianity favored" and what "they" might do?

-No one is arguing against the neutrality of the US government. Neutrality doesn't mean abstaining in every instance from any or all religion.
Already did. Here and here.

OAW
     
Kerrigan
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2010, 06:48 PM
 
Before we get too excited about this, Democrats have actually elected a congresswoman who thinks that the US has sent men to Mars. [Sheila Jackson Lee]

Let's not forget that Democrats also have a senate candidate who has pornography-related felon charges, and who is suspected of being mentally handicapped for quotes such as these:

"Another thing we can do for jobs is make toys of me, especially for the holidays. Little dolls. Me. Like maybe little action dolls. Me in an army uniform, air force uniform, and me in my suit. They can make toys of me and my vehicle, especially for the holidays and Christmas for the kids. That's something that would create jobs."


O'Donnell is a bozo to say the least, but if you want to take idiotic quotes from a subpar candidate/congressperson and use them to extrapolate conclusions about their political beliefs, then I could find a counterexample every single time.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 23, 2010, 12:13 PM
 
This is all covered in this book, written in the 1800's


BTW Obama can't even correctly recite the Dec. Of Independence.

YouTube - Obama Leaves "By their Creator" Out of Declaration of Independence at Hispanic Caucus Speech
President Obama spoke on September 15, 2010 with members of the Congressional
Hispanic Caucus. At the closing of the speech, the president sought to remind people that America was born out of individuals of varied races and homelands, unified by “faith and fidelity to the shared values that we all hold so dear.”

He went on, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal… endowed with certain inalienable rights: life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That’s what makes us unique. That’s what makes us strong.”

The actual wording of this second sentence of the Declaration of Independence is as follows: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
( Last edited by Chongo; Oct 25, 2010 at 10:14 AM. )
45/47
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 23, 2010, 12:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by CreepDogg View Post
No. Decades of judiciary precedent on this topic says otherwise.
There's lots of "judiciary precedent" that has little to nothing to do with what the document actually says, or what the founders intended. We are debating what was actually written and what the founders actually intended. That was O'Donnell's bigger point. It's why people making fun of her actually show their own ignorance.

That's why we are doing here, what O'Donnell (ham handedly) tried to do in the debate.
     
CreepDogg
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 23, 2010, 01:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
There's lots of "judiciary precedent" that has little to nothing to do with what the document actually says, or what the founders intended. We are debating what was actually written and what the founders actually intended. That was O'Donnell's bigger point. It's why people making fun of her actually show their own ignorance.
I know. I'm more interested in what's actually actionable (i.e. the centuries of judiciary precedent) than what some subset of the founders thought.

And what's ignorant is stating that 'judiciary precedent' has 'little to nothing' to do with what the document actually says. Actually, that 'judiciary precedent' is applying what the document actually says in an actionable way. That's the whole point of the judiciary. People who ignore that are showing their ignorance.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 23, 2010, 05:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by CreepDogg View Post
I know. I'm more interested in what's actually actionable (i.e. the centuries of judiciary precedent) than what some subset of the founders thought.
The point is that the "judiciary precedent" in this case is based entirely on what a small subset of the founders thought, not the desires of the majority or those who had a hand in the founding or the majority of the people who where going to be part of this new country.

In other words, judges decided for themselves to implement Jefferson's ideas instead of just interpreting the document based on precisely what it says, supported by what the majority believed at the time. Again, if there is confusion about whether the majority wanted this "high wall," they would never have based all of our principles on the fact that it was God himself who gave them to us. You really can't have a non-religious entity who claims all of the rights entitled by those who are members is granted by God. Doesn't really make a lot of sense.

And what's ignorant is stating that 'judiciary precedent' has 'little to nothing' to do with what the document actually says. Actually, that 'judiciary precedent' is applying what the document actually says in an actionable way. That's the whole point of the judiciary. People who ignore that are showing their ignorance.
That's assuming that the judiciary acts in good faith and honestly interprets based on original intent of the majority of the founders, and doesn't decide to legislate, as it has in this matter.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 23, 2010, 09:21 PM
 
The god-like status imbued upon The Founders by some is impressive.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 23, 2010, 09:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
The god-like status imbued upon The Founders by some is impressive.

Indeed, I've never really understood the fundamental logic behind trying to recreate everything as it once was.
     
CreepDogg
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 23, 2010, 11:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
The point is that the "judiciary precedent" in this case is based entirely on what a small subset of the founders thought, not the desires of the majority or those who had a hand in the founding or the majority of the people who where going to be part of this new country.

In other words, judges decided for themselves to implement Jefferson's ideas instead of just interpreting the document based on precisely what it says, supported by what the majority believed at the time. Again, if there is confusion about whether the majority wanted this "high wall," they would never have based all of our principles on the fact that it was God himself who gave them to us. You really can't have a non-religious entity who claims all of the rights entitled by those who are members is granted by God. Doesn't really make a lot of sense.
Totally disagree. This is about the actual and actionable implementation of the document, and how it applies moving forward, not 'majority of founders rules'.

That's assuming that the judiciary acts in good faith and honestly interprets based on original intent of the majority of the founders, and doesn't decide to legislate, as it has in this matter.
If it wasn't 'good faith', I think there'd have been a lot more dissent over the last couple centuries. Again, it's not 'majority of founders' rules, because 1) that's irrelevant, 2) no one is a mind-reader anyway, and 3) no one would ever agree on the specific population of 'founders' and what would constitute a 'majority'.

While your 'majority of founders' argument is convenient for your cause, it's not really practical, actionable, or even 'provable' in any way that would objectively carry things forward. Sorry. Try again.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 23, 2010, 11:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
The god-like status imbued upon The Founders by some is impressive.
We've got to set standards.

They decided what we'd have, based on input by the "people."

Everyone agreed and they made the "Constitution" so that there would be no tyrannies of a minority of the elite. They assumed we'd all live by this agreement instead of allowing a few individuals to just change the fabric of our country because they decide what everyone originally agreed to wasn't what they like.

No one is suggesting that the founders where "god-like." They just knew what they wanted, compromised based on the will of the people, and came up with something that everyone agreed was good. They then provided a mechanism for change when the majority agreed. Often times the judiciary bypasses all of this. I can't think of a single reason how this can be any good.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 23, 2010, 11:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by CreepDogg View Post
Totally disagree. This is about the actual and actionable implementation of the document, and how it applies moving forward, not 'majority of founders rules'.
"The majority of founders," opinions and intent is what the document in question is based on. It's what the judiciary is supposed to be considering when they interpret the law. If they want to change how it "applies moving forward," there is a mechanism to do so which is not in the power of the judiciary.

If it wasn't 'good faith', I think there'd have been a lot more dissent over the last couple centuries.
I'm seeing dissent in this forum. I saw dissent in the debate in question. I see dissent in the courts.

The problem is that the judiciary implemented another political philosophy, supported by intellectual elites, that they abuse in order to keep their legislation on the bench from being removed. It's called "Stare Decisis." Essentially, it protects bad legal judgements and legislation from the bench from being scaled back. Basically, "hey, I'm changing things the way I like them - NO DO OVERS!!!"

Again, it's not 'majority of founders' rules, because 1) that's irrelevant, 2) no one is a mind-reader anyway, and 3) no one would ever agree on the specific population of 'founders' and what would constitute a 'majority'.
1. The intent of the majority of the founders isn't relevant to determining the meaning of the language in the Constitution? Huh? That's pretty much the ONLY way to honestly interpret the document in question. The court's job in regards to the Constitution isn't to decide what is good law or not. It's job is to decide if document in question forbids or allows something, based on intent.

2. You don't have to be a mind reader. We know by historical precedent, and the words they themselves gave us, what they believed for the most part. The co-mingling of religion and government was pretty broad back at the time of the signing of the Constitution. To suggest that such a thing wasn't the intent of those who were doing it is a pretty stupid argument, IMO.

3. It's not hard to look at historical precedent and what many of the founders actually had to say about the subject in question. The appropriate question would be whether more of them seemed to agree with the philosophy of Jefferson and Madison, or more seemed to support a more relaxed approach. Seems that most evidence falls on the former, rather than the latter.

While your 'majority of founders' argument is convenient for your cause, it's not really practical, actionable, or even 'provable' in any way that would objectively carry things forward. Sorry. Try again.
See above. It's practical, actionable, provable, and what was intended from the get go. Much more reasonable then simply to let a few citizens to decide on their own what the outcome should be based on their personal preferences, which is the standard we know have.
     
CreepDogg
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2010, 12:05 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
"The majority of founders," opinions and intent is what the document in question is based on. It's what the judiciary is supposed to be considering when they interpret the law. If they want to change how it "applies moving forward," there is a mechanism to do so which is not in the power of the judiciary.
No. The judiciary's job is to apply the document to real-life situations. That's it.

I'm seeing dissent in this forum. I saw dissent in the debate in question. I see dissent in the courts.
Hm. Well, there's a pretty consistent outcome whenever this is actually put to the judiciary test. What some numbskull Senate candidate in Delaware thinks of it is not really of quite the same concern.

The problem is that the judiciary implemented another political philosophy, supported by intellectual elites, that they abuse in order to keep their legislation on the bench from being removed. It's called "Stare Decisis." Essentially, it protects bad legal judgements and legislation from the bench from being scaled back. Basically, "hey, I'm changing things the way I like them - NO DO OVERS!!!"
What 'changed' here? This has been the judiciary precedent from, well, basically day one. And subsequent outcomes have been pretty consistent. If there were something to be 'scaled back', it'd have been done by now.


1. The intent of the majority of the founders isn't relevant to determining the meaning of the language in the Constitution? Huh? That's pretty much the ONLY way to honestly interpret the document in question. The court's job in regards to the Constitution isn't to decide what is good law or not. It's job is to decide if document in question forbids or allows something, based on intent.
To your first question - correct. I don't care what the founders would have thought about nuclear weapons, for example. It's irrelevant. The judiciary's job is to apply the document to real life situations, in the present. That's what's been going on all along.

2. You don't have to be a mind reader. We know by historical precedent, and the words they themselves gave us, what they believed for the most part. The co-mingling of religion and government was pretty broad back at the time of the signing of the Constitution. To suggest that such a thing wasn't the intent of those who were doing it is a pretty stupid argument, IMO.

3. It's not hard to look at historical precedent and what many of the founders actually had to say about the subject in question. The appropriate question would be whether more of them seemed to agree with the philosophy of Jefferson and Madison, or more seemed to support a more relaxed approach. Seems that most evidence falls on the former, rather than the latter.
OK. We need names of EVERY founder you wish to consider, along with their documented and confirmed opinion on the matter. Once that list is vetted with everyone else, we can come to a conclusion. Have fun!

See above. It's practical, actionable, provable, and what was intended from the get go. Much more reasonable then simply to let a few citizens to decide on their own what the outcome should be based on their personal preferences, which is the standard we know have.
OK, get to my request above, and then we'll see how practical, actionable, and provable it is.
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2010, 12:28 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
Are you saying you don't recall a time when children were forced to pray in school at the beginning of the day? I've heard arguments where it's removal is listed as an example of the moral decay that the whiney liberals are introducing to society.
The courts were right to strike such down. I've often said people that want to use government power to back up their personal religious beliefs are being just as abusive of government power as those that want to use government power to back up their personal social beliefs. But many of the modern issues surrounding church/state have nothing to do with anyone trying to force their religious beliefs on others: like I said, whiney atheists soiling themselves over nativity scenes, or someone with their panties in a twist because someone else wants to pray to themselves at school, or *gasp* because the word God appears on our currency. (Now quick, pretend these non-issues never come up and go for some cheap attempt at a 'gotcha'! So productive.)

I have no problem with a rational level of separation of church and state- in so much as it can be said to be touched on in the constitution. (No state religion, no laws made against the practice). In fact, I'm a big fan.

But you may notice, it's a mostly a ONE-WAY separation, barring STATE action far more than the legal actions of individuals. Look at the Cantwell v. Connecticut in the first amendment incorporation case. The court actually ruled to the effect that the defendants' religious beliefs overpowered the state statutes they violated. Most of the landmark cases involve restriction placed on the state, not the religious.


The constitution- much to the chagrin of the 'living breathing' moonbat types- is really mostly about that: the limits of government power. Hence, the right generally wants it enforced as it exists, the left is always trying to invent ways around it and pretend the meanings of words change every other week, to get their dreamed of nanny state which requires a government that ignores the constitution as it exists.


All this 'living in the past' nonsense is the retreat of the shallow and small minded (as usual).

When people enter into a contract, it means what it means. The day it was written. Two years from now. A hundred plus years from now. Agreed upon rules don't change just because you wish them to.

If we want to change something in the agreement that exists between us and our government- we have an actual AMENDMENT process. The founders were wise to make this a difficult thing to do, otherwise we get nitwits able to amend the constitution based on current fad and whim.

Look no further than the 18th Amendment for an excellent example.

If the current gang of retards actually had the power to amend the constitution on a whim, we'd have idiotic things like this happening constantly with short-sighted morons trying to use the constitution to outlaw everything they disagree with. Heck, the current crop of nitwits would probably have repealed the 1st and certainly the 2nd by now, and written in crap like "Congress can force citizens to buy a product" so they wouldn't have to keep abusing the living breathing hell out of the commerce clause and hoping everyone but the usual gang of suck-ups won't notice.

So yeah, boooo hooo it's haaaard for whiney big government sycophants who can't think past next week to amend the constitution- AS IT SHOULD BE. Because it should only ever be done for actual good reasons that a majority of (hopefully sane) people agree on. And just pretending over time that words suddenly mean something else than what they mean, isn't a valid way for shallow busibodies to shred the constitution either. Too bad.
     
CreepDogg
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2010, 12:48 AM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
Hence, the right generally wants it enforced as it exists, the left is always trying to invent ways around it and pretend the meanings of words change every other week, to get their dreamed of nanny state which requires a government that ignores the constitution as it exists.
While I (gasp) generally agree with most of the rest of your post, I disagree with this. Everyone uses both those tactics as they suit their agendas. You have to be pretty blindly partisan not to see that.

When people enter into a contract, it means what it means. The day it was written. Two years from now. A hundred plus years from now. Agreed upon rules don't change just because you wish them to.
Yes. And sometimes, external circumstances change such that a determination is needed on how to apply the contract ('rules') to new circumstances. That's precisely what the judiciary is for.

Amendments are needed to change the contract ('rules') itself.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2010, 09:22 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Indeed, I've never really understood the fundamental logic behind trying to recreate everything as it once was.
I think it's more motivated in wanting to uphold the comparatively new ideals of our founding instead of recreating the ideals that preceded it.
ebuddy
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 25, 2010, 07:15 AM
 
Originally Posted by CreepDogg View Post
No. The judiciary's job is to apply the document to real-life situations. That's it.
...based on what it actually says, and what the majority of our founders intended it to mean. Yeah, I know. If you do otherwise, you are simply inventing a new Constitution. Currently, the "establishment" clause has been distorted to apply to "real-life situations" as if only Thomas Jefferson ever existed.

Hm. Well, there's a pretty consistent outcome whenever this is actually put to the judiciary test. What some numbskull Senate candidate in Delaware thinks of it is not really of quite the same concern.
See above concerning the "no do-overs" clause. Of course, if the judiciary elite are going to ignore the will of the majority of our founders, they are surely going to ignore a single elected representative of the people whose job it is to actually create new law, unlike the Judiciary.

What 'changed' here? This has been the judiciary precedent from, well, basically day one. And subsequent outcomes have been pretty consistent. If there were something to be 'scaled back', it'd have been done by now.
No, it hasn't. It's gone down the proverbial "slippery slope" via Stare Decisis. I quoted for you the first Supreme Court Chief Justice's views. I can quote you dozens of opinions offered by the founding fathers which would seem to go contrary to this "precedent" as well.

To your first question - correct. I don't care what the founders would have thought about nuclear weapons, for example. It's irrelevant. The judiciary's job is to apply the document to real life situations, in the present. That's what's been going on all along.
The "real world situations" in questions aren't new situations, so your example holds no water. For example, prayer in schools? Fully allowed and supported back at the time of the founding and only LATER was it pealed back because there where some in the judiciary and intellectual elite who didn't like it. After that - BAM - Stare Decisis and precedent. It's the same with the new law created and invented with Roe V. Wade, another "real world situation" that already existed back at the time of the founding to which laws allowing it's ban where enforced.

This standard you forward is a bogus usurpation of power by the judiciary that our founding fathers never agreed to, and that we the people somehow tolerate and let stand.

OK. We need names of EVERY founder you wish to consider, along with their documented and confirmed opinion on the matter. Once that list is vetted with everyone else, we can come to a conclusion. Have fun!
All I'd have to show is that more of them had views that ran counter to Jefferson and provide evidence that such was the greater standard at the time of the signing. That really wouldn't be all that hard. There are books filled with the evidence in question. Of course, that's what the court is supposed to do, and instead many just relied on Jefferson because his personal beliefs on the subject matched theirs. Showing and knowing that there were vastly more who did not share Jefferson's philosophy in an attempt to interpret the law is an entirely more intellectually honest excerise than just sitting back and letting the beliefs of one or two folks who were around back then to do your legislative (from the bench) dirty work for you.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 25, 2010, 07:18 AM
 
...and I'm waiting for all the folks who now understand what O'Donnell was getting at, who simply accused her of being stupid, to offer her an apology.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 25, 2010, 07:40 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
...and I'm waiting for all the folks who now understand what O'Donnell was getting at, who simply accused her of being stupid, to offer her an apology.
You'll have to wait until the elections are over unfortunately. The machine will revoke their misinformation distributors' licenses if fairness is expressed a moment too soon.
ebuddy
     
CreepDogg
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 25, 2010, 08:37 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
The "real world situations" in questions aren't new situations, so your example holds no water. For example, prayer in schools? Fully allowed and supported back at the time of the founding and only LATER was it pealed back because there where some in the judiciary and intellectual elite who didn't like it. After that - BAM - Stare Decisis and precedent.
OK, whatever - let's take yours then. A real world situation where it's obvious that it's not consistent with the First Amendment. At All. So - the judiciary applied the document to the real world and did the right thing. Again and again. Case closed.

All I'd have to show is that more of them had views that ran counter to Jefferson and provide evidence that such was the greater standard at the time of the signing. That really wouldn't be all that hard. There are books filled with the evidence in question. Of course, that's what the court is supposed to do, and instead many just relied on Jefferson because his personal beliefs on the subject matched theirs. Showing and knowing that there were vastly more who did not share Jefferson's philosophy in an attempt to interpret the law is an entirely more intellectually honest excerise than just sitting back and letting the beliefs of one or two folks who were around back then to do your legislative (from the bench) dirty work for you.
OK - so that's a nice long way of saying you can't name names. Thought so. So I guess we're back to square one about the 'majority of founders'. Guess it's back up to the courts to figure it out based on reality rather than your theological fantasies.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 25, 2010, 08:40 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
...and I'm waiting for all the folks who now understand what O'Donnell was getting at, who simply accused her of being stupid, to offer her an apology.
What was she getting at? That it doesn't count if it was only included through an amendment and not written in the original document?
     
CreepDogg
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 25, 2010, 09:00 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
...and I'm waiting for all the folks who now understand what O'Donnell was getting at, who simply accused her of being stupid, to offer her an apology.
'Now' understand? What's changed, exactly?

As I already stated, she either 1) didn't know what she was talking about, or 2) doesn't believe her own BS enough to bother to make a coherent argument about it. Either way, I don't really see the need for an 'apology'.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 25, 2010, 12:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by CreepDogg View Post
OK, whatever - let's take yours then. A real world situation where it's obvious that it's not consistent with the First Amendment. At All. So - the judiciary applied the document to the real world and did the right thing. Again and again. Case closed.
No such thing is "obvious". As it's been explained, a country whose rights are endowed by God, who does not forbid it's people to worship as they chose, nor does it require them to worship as it chooses, can be totally consistent with the language of the first amendment (and intent) and still allow religious expression as part of government. That's precisely how things where handled back at the time of the writing of the document, and why the newer interpretations are bogus attempts by the judiciary to legislate it's own desires.

OK - so that's a nice long way of saying you can't name names
I've already named some names in this thread. Do you really need more? Are you seriously looking for answers or going on a fishing expedition? The interpretation by the courts of the "high wall" often only cite Jefferson, and don't look at opposing views. In fact, in Reynolds v. United States (1879) the Supreme Court said Jefferson's observations 'may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment.'

Of course, this seems to make the logical assumption that ONLY Jefferson's beliefs in regards to the rationale behind the amendment should be considered, which is unreasonable and illogical given that he alone was not responsible for the founding of our country and the creation of it's constitution.. It's clear that these otherwise intelligent men reduced themselves in such a way because it gave them a scapegoat in order to fulfill their personal vision of what the amendment SHOULD mean, despite past precedent, the intent of the majority of the framers, and the will of the people being vastly different.
( Last edited by stupendousman; Oct 25, 2010 at 12:44 PM. )
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 25, 2010, 12:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
What was she getting at? That it doesn't count if it was only included through an amendment and not written in the original document?
That it wasn't written in either. Are you still under the assumption that the language in question is anywhere in the Constitution?

That it was instead inferred by the courts despite it being the view of a minority involved.

Have you not been following this thread?
( Last edited by stupendousman; Oct 25, 2010 at 12:46 PM. )
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 25, 2010, 12:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by CreepDogg View Post
'Now' understand? What's changed, exactly?
I'm hoping that since it's clear that this is a matter of debate, and she was pointing that out, that people whose biases otherwise had brainwashed them into assuming that the slippery slope the judiciary has been involved in somehow actually had anything to do with what the majority of the founders intended, understood that her questions were fact based, and reasonable, instead of assuming she just didn't know exactly which items where enumerated in the first amendment.

Maybe I gave some of you guys too much intellectual credit.

As I already stated, she either 1) didn't know what she was talking about, or 2) doesn't believe her own BS enough to bother to make a coherent argument about it. Either way, I don't really see the need for an 'apology'.
Of course you don't. You have your false dichotomy to crutch yourself up on.
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 25, 2010, 12:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
The "real world situations" in questions aren't new situations, so your example holds no water. For example, prayer in schools? Fully allowed and supported back at the time of the founding and only LATER was it pealed back because there where some in the judiciary and intellectual elite who didn't like it.
Completely misleading because circumstances changed. Taxpayer-supported public education was practically nonexistent at the beginning of this country. I would be hard-pressed to guess the opinion of "the founders" on the subject of prayer in public schools, when their experience was in privately-funded, largely parochial schools.

You are of course free to guess as you choose, but don't pretend that you have secret knowledge of what the founders specifically thought about whether prayer in public schools has ramifications under the Establishment Clause. You don't, because no one does.
( Last edited by SpaceMonkey; Oct 25, 2010 at 12:46 PM. )

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 25, 2010, 12:52 PM
 
O'Donnell can't tell the difference between religion and science. She would have people learn how to bake cookies in a calculus class room, because... I guess, because baking cookies deals with numbers; and cookies taste good. I don't know what her level of understanding is in regards to the constitution, but given her remarks on creationism, I can tell you that it wasn't anything meaningful or complex.

She doesn't care how the Constitution is interpreted, she only cares that her religion is included in that interpretation. Even it isn't, she'll blindly claim it is.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 25, 2010, 12:57 PM
 
Okay, I'd named the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court for some background on what some who were involved with the start of our country, other than Jefferson and Madison, thought.

Here's is another "name". The name? The United States Supreme Court.

THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

HOLY TRINITY CHURCH v. U.S.
February 29, 1892

"These and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation."

Now...that's not to say that maybe the "high wall" isn't the best way to go. I myself think there's a middle ground between what the framers intended, and what liberal courts later legislated. The way to fix it so it's right and fair though is via constitutional amendment. Not judicial fiat.

Otherwise, you've got precisely one of the problems our framers hoped wouldn't happen in the US, with an unelected monarchy (in this case, the judiciary) making decisions that go contrary of the will of the people and against what our founding fathers set up. That's neither fair, reasonable or honest.
     
ort888
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Your Anus
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 25, 2010, 01:04 PM
 
The will of what people? The people who think exactly like you do? What a hot load.

The last time I checked lots of different people have very different ideas on how things should be.

My sig is 1 pixel too big.
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 25, 2010, 01:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Okay, I'd named the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court for some background on what some who were involved with the start of our country, other than Jefferson and Madison, thought.

Here's is another "name". The name? The United States Supreme Court.

THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

HOLY TRINITY CHURCH v. U.S.
February 29, 1892

"These and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation."

Now...that's not to say that maybe the "high wall" isn't the best way to go. I myself think there's a middle ground between what the framers intended, and what liberal courts later legislated. The way to fix it so it's right and fair though is via constitutional amendment. Not judicial fiat.

Otherwise, you've got precisely one of the problems our framers hoped wouldn't happen in the US, with an unelected monarchy (in this case, the judiciary) making decisions that go contrary of the will of the people and against what our founding fathers set up. That's neither fair, reasonable or honest.
So your claim is now that the decision in an 1892 case demonstrates the intent of "the founders"? Isn't this whole judicial interpretation thing how you claim we're getting in trouble? It's worth noting that Scalia, in his book on judicial interpretation, rips on the decision in Holy Trinity Church v U.S. for doing exactly what you claim to be worried about: lawmaking by judicial fiat.

For your position to have any consistency, you should be just as worried about judicial overreaching in Holy Trinity Church v. U.S. as you are about relevant cases citing the "high wall" standard.

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 25, 2010, 01:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by ort888 View Post
The will of what people? The people who think exactly like you do? What a hot load.

The last time I checked lots of different people have very different ideas on how things should be.
No no no no...the will of the people at the founding (cue dramatic music).

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 25, 2010, 01:24 PM
 
While I do believe some people are trying to spin O'Donnell's gaffe into a platform-based ideology GOTCHA, and I can concede that various interpretations of the Constitution are possible...

I still think O'Donnell's a twit and a pale shade of a Palin-wanna be.

Let's have a seance with the Founding Fathers and that will put the debate to rest.
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 25, 2010, 01:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
""It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists but by Christians, not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ.""

JOHN JAY, FIRST CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT, President of the Continental Congress, co-writer of the Federalist Papers and a peer to the men signing the US Constitution
(Who clearly didn't interpret the Constitution as later SC Justices have)
Do you have an actual citation for this? Googling (and Snopes) tells me that it is chronically mis-attributed to Patrick Henry (and no mention of Jay), which understandably makes me hesitant to simply take your word for it being a Jay quote.

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
CreepDogg
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 25, 2010, 02:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
As it's been explained, a country whose rights are endowed by God, who does not forbid it's people to worship as they chose, nor does it require them to worship as it chooses, can be totally consistent with the language of the first amendment (and intent) and still allow religious expression as part of government.
Which God? Who gets to define it?

I've already named some names in this thread. Do you really need more? Are you seriously looking for answers or going on a fishing expedition? The interpretation by the courts of the "high wall" often only cite Jefferson, and don't look at opposing views. In fact, in Reynolds v. United States (1879) the Supreme Court said Jefferson's observations 'may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment.'

Of course, this seems to make the logical assumption that ONLY Jefferson's beliefs in regards to the rationale behind the amendment should be considered, which is unreasonable and illogical given that he alone was not responsible for the founding of our country and the creation of it's constitution.. It's clear that these otherwise intelligent men reduced themselves in such a way because it gave them a scapegoat in order to fulfill their personal vision of what the amendment SHOULD mean, despite past precedent, the intent of the majority of the framers, and the will of the people being vastly different.
Hey, YOU'RE the one claiming we need to use the opinions of 'the majority of the founders'. Not me. So, if you're going to make that claim, then I think it needs to be clear 1) exactly who 'the founders' are, and 2) know all their documented and confirmed opinions so that we can enumerate them. Absent that, your claim holds no water.
     
CreepDogg
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 25, 2010, 02:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
Let's have a seance with the Founding Fathers and that will put the debate to rest.


According to some, that's exactly what should happen at every trial.
     
 
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 05:38 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.,