joako
Premium
join:2000-09-07
/dev/null
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| reply to TKJunkMail
Re: Conyers is my hero
said by TKJunkMail  :I'll say this once to save you from future useless demands for answers. I answer whatever I feel like answering and when someone DEMANDS answers I am even less likely to feel the need to reply. Don't like that, then ignore me. And I am not going anywhere. You my friend are 100% correct. We have no right to demand anything. We are lucky to even be alive. With all the terrorism threats everyone should be monitored 24/7/365 even when they use the bathroom. We have no right other than to actually be alive. If anyone disagrees they should be sent to internment camps as they are infidenls and without a doubt terrorists. Times have changed. The bill of rights was written hundreds of years ago and no longer applies to modern times.
--
09:F9:11:02:9D:74:E3:5B:D8:41:56:C5:63:56:88:C0 |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
 ·Cox HSI
 ·magicjack.com
| said by joako :The bill of rights was written hundreds of years ago and no longer applies to modern times. That's really closer to the truth than you're probably willing to admit. The BoR wasn't a bar against State and private infringement. Only Congressional infringement. In 1866 it was extended by the 14th Amendment (in a *huge* shift of power from State sovereignty). But, it wasn't until the 1920s that the Supreme Court recognized this intent.
Over the following 50 years the SC "incorporated" various clauses of the BoR against State and private infringement. Even going so far as recognizing a right of privacy which hadn't been recognized before.
The moral of the story is: When the BoR was expanding far beyond what the Founders envisioned it was ok for them to "no longer apply to modern times." But, if they need to contract, all we hear about is how the BoR is being "erased." (No mention of how they've expanded, and perhaps it's just a balancing act.).
Mark |
|
jc100
join:2002-04-10
1 edit | Amigo boy tries and FAILS. First off, the Bill of Rights was setup to grant state rights and federal rights. States were suppose to maintain their sovereignty with the federal government only doing two things. 1) Defense 2) Print money. That was the original intent of the BOR. Short of that, it was suppose to be left up to EACH INDIVIDUAL state to enact their laws. Somewhere along the line, we accepted the federal government as the means to end all. In this respect, somehow states have unilaterally handed away their rights in favor of the federal government dictating. This is the main issue today in the U.S. While we need federal laws and a federal government, it SHOULD NOT BE FORCING STATES and ENTITIES WITHIN THEM to participate in illegal activities. Yes, these wiretaps and such were illegal. The House didn't grant immunity so now it's for a court to decide this for certain. Similar to this, the Bill of Rights was setup as a means for the people to have a voice, where they often did not. We fled England because of this exact issue. Taxation without representation. If our government wants to take our dollars, it needs to listen to what we have to say. Just because we've tolerated idiots getting into office and then forgetting about us, doesn't make it right. It just means the American people need to get off their ass and demand more of their elected officials. Basically, we dictate what's acceptable as a society, by either allowing or disallowing certain events. Trust me, enough people speaking up has the ability to change a lot. Just look at history. |
|
ross
join:2000-08-16
 ·Digizip
2 edits | reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy :said by joako :The bill of rights was written hundreds of years ago and no longer applies to modern times. That's really closer to the truth than you're probably willing to admit. The BoR wasn't a bar against State and private infringement. Only Congressional infringement. In 1866 it was extended by the 14th Amendment (in a *huge* shift of power from State sovereignty). But, it wasn't until the 1920s that the Supreme Court recognized this intent. Over the following 50 years the SC "incorporated" various clauses of the BoR against State and private infringement. Even going so far as recognizing a right of privacy which hadn't been recognized before. The moral of the story is: When the BoR was expanding far beyond what the Founders envisioned it was ok for them to "no longer apply to modern times." But, if they need to contract, all we hear about is how the BoR is being "erased." (No mention of how they've expanded, and perhaps it's just a balancing act.). Mark Again with the bullshit pseudo history! Even you should know the U.S. Supreme Court doesn't make the law, it merely interprets the law. The USSC didn't create any rights, they merely elucidated the extent to which our unalienable, and enumerated Constitutional, rights control/limit/protect our relationships within our society, and with our government.
The right to privacy is implicit in the language of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, but was further codified in the Privacy Act of 1974 in response to transgressions against American citizens by then President Nixon.
Bottom line, the founding fathers never expected that any rights would need to "contract" as you put it. They wished to protect against that happening by clearly enunciating our most basic rights in the Constitution, as amended, while reserving all other non-enumerated rights for the people.
Over the years, many other amendments delineating rights and remedies have been added to the Constitution, but no amendments, other than the Eighteenth and Twentyfirst dealing with alcohol prohibition, have been struck from the document, nor have rights enumerated therein been forfeited. Furthermore, since Richard M. Nixon, no president, other than G.W. Bush, has had the audacity to create "exceptions" to the Privacy Act of 1974.
The only relevant balancing act is that of the rule of law offsetting the lust for power manifested by would-be tyrants like G.W. Bush lest it culminate in the total conversion of our hallowed institutions into peripatetic outhouses where our founding documents become merely the wadded media upon which Bush "inscribes" his loftiest "thoughts". |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| said by ross : Even you should know the U.S. Supreme Court doesn't make the law, it merely interprets the law. How naive is that attitude? Of course, the courts make law. You say all they do is interpret the law. But the courts throughout US history have gone way beyond interpreting the law. They have made up laws and rights out of whole cloth. Where do you think the term "judicial activism" has come from?
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
jc100
join:2002-04-10
| And judicial activism is a two way street. You have liberal and right ring judges making their own laws. However, one hopes that on appeals, most of these laws are stricken down. A lot of times, this is the case. Not always. Then again, no system is perfect. Still, it's better we got a review process and appeals, than a one man show after all. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court which is often suppose to be non political, has seem to be all but that. You can nearly guess how they rule each and every time by the party they are affiliated with. Sandra Day O Connor said it best. The Court these days worries too much about politics and partisanism and too little about the issues. |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
1 edit | reply to ross
said by ross :The right to privacy is implicit in the language of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, Only implicit, and only "reasonable." But, the fact of the matter is that the Bill of Rights were never imagined to apply to State or Private infringement. Only Congressional. At the time the Constitution was ratified it was common for *States* to violate rights. The Founders were apparently ok with that. They just didn't want a *large* government doing it.
It's also important to remember that the Founders created the Federal government with all these limitations on rights (such as "reasonable" or "just compensation") because they didn't *like* the very limited government they had for 11 years after the revolution (The Articles of Confederation).
Therefore, it's perfectly true to say rights "contract." By creating the Federal government their rights contracted.
And, as far as expanding rights, it wasn't until 1866 that the Bill of Rights was applied to State and private infringement. It required an amendment to the constitution. That was an expansion (at the cost of shifting a *huge* amount of power from the states to the Federal government).
However, the Supreme Court refused to accept the intent of the 14th amendment for 60 years. You can say the SC doesn't "create law." But, when they refused to accept the intent of a law for 50 years, it's *a lot* like creating law.
It took another 60 years for the Supreme Court to selectively apply the 14th Amendment to the vast majority of the Bill of Rights. (110 years!). It still hasn't incorporated all of the BoR. For example, the 2nd Amendment which, more than any other right was discussed by the Framers as the reason for the 14th Amendment (to keep freed slaves armed against white violence).
said by ross :but was further codified in the Privacy Act of 1974 "Creating rights" through legislation (especially the name of the legislation) is different than enumerating them as primary rights. (What the government givith, the government taketh away). If creating a law makes it right, then everyone complaining about the Patriot Act must be pounding sand?
said by ross :Bottom line, the founding fathers never expected that any rights would need to "contract" as you put it. That's untrue. They accommodated (and exercised) the ability to call a Constitutional Convention (as a reset button) potentially contracting rights (as they did in 1789, compared to what they had under the Articles of Confederation.).
They accommodated the amendment process to the Constitution. For example, the right to choose a President for 3 terms has been lost. The right to have a deliberative legislative body (the Senate) was lost 90 years ago when Senators were subjected to popular vote.
I appreciate your passion. But, passion often gets in the way of truth.
Mark |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| reply to jc100
said by jc100 :the Bill of Rights was setup to grant state rights and federal rights. I'll let Ross handle this since he seems to be so picky about historic accuracy.
Mark |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| reply to jc100
said by jc100 :You have liberal and right ring judges making their own laws. Ross, would you like to handle this? I know how adamant you were with me that judges don't create laws. (Or, is it just me?).
Mark |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| reply to jc100
said by jc100 :The Court these days worries too much about politics and partisanism and too little about the issues. With every ruling their will be winners and losers. Those who win will say "finally! The SC did the right thing instead of following their personal preferences." The losers will say "these days they worry too much about partisan politics."
It's been that way since 1791.
Mark |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| reply to jc100
said by jc100 :The Court these days worries too much about politics and partisanism and too little about the issues. Soon after Justice Douglas's appointment in 1939, Chief Justice Hughes gave the newcomer some surprising advice:
"You must remember one thing. At the constitutional level where we work, ninety percent of any decision is emotional. The rational part of us supplies the reasons for supporting our own predilections." Mason, William O. Douglas: A Justice for All, Wash. Post (Book World), Nov. 2, 1980, at 1, col. 1.
Mark |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
1 edit | said by amigo_boy :said by jc100 :The Court these days worries too much about politics and partisanism and too little about the issues. Soon after Justice Douglas's appointment in 1939, Chief Justice Hughes gave the newcomer some surprising advice: "You must remember one thing. At the constitutional level where we work, ninety percent of any decision is emotional. The rational part of us supplies the reasons for supporting our own predilections." Mason, William O. Douglas: A Justice for All, Wash. Post (Book World), Nov. 2, 1980, at 1, col. 1. Mark I had a Federal Judge for a teacher in Business Law in the MBA program I took. And he said basically the same thing - that most judges make a decision that they personally consider fair, and then look for legal precedent to back their personal decision. They don't enforce the law - they make it up as they go along. And there are so MANY conflicting laws and regulations that they can usually find something to back their personal decisions.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
ross
join:2000-08-16
·Digizip
| reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail :...How naive is that attitude? Of course, the courts make law. You say all they do is interpret the law. But the courts throughout US history have gone way beyond interpreting the law. They have made up laws and rights out of whole cloth. Where do you think the term "judicial activism" has come from? "Judicial activism" is a phrase born of hallucination, conjured up by right-wing wackos to describe the process whereby their periodic attempts to pervert and subvert our Constitution, abridge our civil rights, and privatize the public treasury are dashed asunder upon the inhospitable shores of bedrock reason (as pitiably constituted by the current USSC), and are thus dissipated and pacified.  The religio-righteous warrior's unbearable frustration has given rise to the term "judicial activism", to be used as a verbal shillelagh with which to beat the unsuspecting common man into mindless submission to their twisted will. 
For your review:
1) Laws are written and passed by the legislative branch, then passed along to the...
2) Executive branch, where laws are approved or disapproved...signed or vetoed.
3) If controversy over the interpretation, implementation or enforcement of a law occurs, the Judicial branch reviews and rules upon the facts of the case before them, taking into account our founding documents explicit, and implicit, language, as well as the legislative history, or purpose of the law as originally stated by legislative branch, its own rulings if precedent exists, and decides if the law may stand, or should be struck down.
Or, at least that's the way it used to work before mein fuhrer, the chimp, took over...now we he just makes them up as he sees fit...depending on whether he is a decider that day, or the commander in chief, or a make believe pilot, or...a farmer, or a fireman, or just a good ol' boy slammin one down at the local bar with his friends, er, ah, u know, me and you, hiyuckyuckyuck!  |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| said by ross :its own rulings if precedent exists, You omitted when precedent exists and they ignore it, or reverse it. Brown v Board (segregation) is a good example. Also the first cases involving the 14th Amendment's applicability of the BoR to State and private infringement (after 60 years of reaffirming Slaughterhouse, et. al.).
It's a bit arbitrary how they do that.
said by ross :and decides if the law may stand, or should be struck down. Which is a lot like creating law. If they allow a law today, and strike it down 50 years from now, reversing or ignoring the very precedent they used to allow the law in the first place, it's just as arbitrary (and powerful) as 500 politicians voting for/against a law.
Mark |
|
ross
join:2000-08-16
·Digizip
| reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy :said by jc100 :You have liberal and right ring judges making their own laws. Ross, would you like to handle this? I know how adamant you were with me that judges don't create laws. (Or, is it just me?). Mark Same message applies: The courts do NOT make the law, they interpret the law to decide if, and how, it may apply to a set of facts in evidence before them, which facts are not in dispute, but the application of law as befit them is. However, in no case does the court make law, rather, it interprets a law, or set of laws, and renders a judgment as regards applicability to the facts of a case before them, or, if the constitutionality of the law itself is in question, they may address that aspect of the law, as it is their mandate to do so. |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
1 edit | said by ross :said by amigo_boy :said by jc100 :You have liberal and right ring judges making their own laws. Ross, would you like to handle this? I know how adamant you were with me that judges don't create laws. (Or, is it just me?). Mark Same message applies: The courts do NOT make the law, ... In your opinion, why is there so much emphasis placed upon the person holding the presidency and their ability to nominate Justices to the Court? If it's not like they have the effect of creating law, why does it matter? Is everyone confused?
Mark |
|
ross
join:2000-08-16
·Digizip
| reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy :You omitted when precedent exists and they ignore it, or reverse it. Brown v Board (segregation) is a good example. Also the first cases involving the 14th Amendment's applicability of the BoR to State and private infringement (after 60 years of reaffirming Slaughterhouse, et. al.). It's a bit arbitrary how they do that. Which is a lot like creating law. If they allow a law today, and strike it down 50 years from now, reversing or ignoring the very precedent they used to allow the law in the first place, it's just as arbitrary (and powerful) as 500 politicians voting for/against a law. Mark While you may say it "is a lot like creating law", it is NOT the SAME THING.
As you may have noticed, justice is often portrayed as both blind and a woman. Hence, while it may seem arbitrary and capricious from time to time, somewhere divine orderliness must be conserved.
Still, the court does NOT make the law, it interprets the law. The filters which constitute the sieve of justice may not be so finely wrought that they do not occasionally pass the out-sized ordure, or with great difficulty expel it only after some duly respectful period has intervened and softened its impactedness.
...and besides, you can't please everyone all the time... |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| said by ross :Still, the court does NOT make the law, it interprets the law. I think that distinction would be lost on the 2k of African Americans lynched between 1866 and 1925 when the Supreme Court first recognized the 14th Amendment's intent (and the intent of to 1866 and 1875 Civil Rights Acts).
said by ross :...and besides, you can't please everyone all the time... Isn't that principle applied to the legislative branch's activities? (Majority versus a minority?).
Mark |
|
ross
join:2000-08-16
·Digizip
1 edit | reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy :In your opinion, why is there so much emphasis placed upon the person holding the presidency and their ability to nominate Justices to the Court? If it's not like they have the effect of creating law, why does it matter? Is everyone confused? Mark Are you still confused about how laws are drawn up, voted on, and if passed, by the legislature, sent to the president for signature or veto? What does this process have to due with the courts, other than legislators and presidents have to be aware of the constraints placed upon them by the Constitution, and that their actions are subject to review by the courts through judicial review of laws they have passed.
It is the individual opinions of the members of the court that politicians of late are concerned with. They have introduced partisan politics into the appointment process of what is supposed to be a non-partisan, independent judiciary. The result is a court which may be manipulated to sustain constitutionally unsound law. A once lofty position of public trust has been reduced to a lifetime employment contract for intellectual frauds like Thomas, and Rehnquist before him, to accomplish political ends of transient worth. Pitiable, really. |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| said by ross :It is the individual opinions of the members of the court that politicians of late are concerned with. They have introduced partisan politics ... Did you see that quote about Douglas which I posted earlier? Do you consider 1939 "recent?"
Mark |
|
