Pravda in NJ?
 

Man, they do *not* like Bush in New Jersey! I don't agree with the
actions, but wow... thanks for sharing!

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
Anybody remember when the images of "disappeared" leaders of the old USSR
were air-brushed from official photos?

See http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/news/WAB...olteacher.html

Rabid Kerry Nuts! I like that. Can I use it? I think Rabid Bush Nuts
sounds more like something you'd get in 7/11 though.


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 4 Oct 2004 11:28:48 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
said:

Man, they do *not* like Bush in New Jersey!

As you may have noticed, NJ went from last week from being a blue state to
being a dead heat, which explains why Kerry started spending money on ads
in
the metropolitan area. However, there do seem to be some pretty rabid
Kerry
nuts there.

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote:
Man, they do *not* like Bush in New Jersey! I don't agree with the
actions, but wow... thanks for sharing!

We have "Pravda" for the entire nation. It's called Fox "fair and
balanced" (How can they not choke when they say that?) "news". choke

Sigh, I guess I'm going to risk being sued. g

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 4 Oct 2004 14:10:18 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
said:

Rabid Kerry Nuts! I like that. Can I use it?

I'm licensing you to use that copyrighted expression for a period of one
day, but only in its original form. That is, if used it must read "Rabid
Kerry Nuts" and not "Rabid" [anything else] "Nuts."

In article ,
Dave wrote:
On 4 Oct 2004 17:35:18 -0700, (Frank Maier) said:

We have "Pravda" for the entire nation. It's called Fox "fair and
balanced" (How can they not choke when they say that?) "news". choke

Would you allow as how there may be a difference between the ways we should
treat government-directed information and the way we treat private news
organizations? Anyone who doesn't want to hear the side of the story Fox
provides has plenty of outlets of the opposite persuasion (though
increasingly they seem to be turning to Fox instead of the Dan Rathers and
Jayson Blairs).

Given the woeful state of learning in our schools, I'm amazed anyone would
be so blinded by ideology that he would want the name of the current
President kept a deep dark secret from the kids.

True enough, but of course there are some school board who are letting
in the theory "Intelligent Design," as opposed to evolution. Did we
solve this 140 years ago?




--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

In article ,
Dave wrote:
On 5 Oct 2004 10:09:46 -0700, (Jonathan Ganz)
said:

True enough, but of course there are some school board who are letting
in the theory "Intelligent Design," as opposed to evolution. Did we
solve this 140 years ago?

Not in the world outside the right and left coasts.


That's right. And the world in between is exactly the world that
BushCo taps into.



--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

In article ,
Dave wrote:
On 5 Oct 2004 14:34:16 -0700, (Jonathan Ganz)
said:
Fortunately, some of us have a bit of time in the rest of the country and
are somewhat less provincial than Ganz.

So you believe that some ignorant bumbkin who tries to "marry" his
sister is more qualified than you or I to decide the direction of the
country. Got it.

--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

In article ,
Dave wrote:
On 5 Oct 2004 16:46:31 -0700, (Frank Maier) said:

There are individual teachers who insist that their kids ...
recite the pledge with the offensive and inaccurate "under God"
phrase

I'll be there are even some who insist on not removing Jefferson's "endowed
by their Creator" language from the Declaration of Independence. How
horrible. Those founding fathers were clearly a bunch of right-wing
religious zealots who can't be tolerated in this day and age.

I grew up saying "under God," and I don't find it offensive. It's a
tempest in a teapot. The real issue is that the Supremes are aging and
if Bush gets a chance he'll appoint more people like Thomas or Scalia
(who isn't all bad, since he claims group sex is good for the
country).



--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

In article ,
Dave wrote:
On 6 Oct 2004 11:17:29 -0700, (Jonathan Ganz)
said:

Fortunately, some of us have a bit of time in the rest of the country and
are somewhat less provincial than Ganz.

So you believe that some ignorant bumbkin who tries to "marry" his
sister is more qualified than you or I to decide the direction of the
country. Got it.

Jonathan, keep at it. You're continuing to prove my point.

Mr. Poodle. I have no trouble keeping it up. On the other hand, no, I
won't go there... The point is CLEARLY on the top of your head!




--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

In article ,
Dave wrote:
On 6 Oct 2004 11:19:46 -0700, (Jonathan Ganz)
said:

I grew up saying "under God," and I don't find it offensive. It's a
tempest in a teapot. The real issue is that the Supremes are aging and
if Bush gets a chance he'll appoint more people like Thomas or Scalia

I certainly hope so. The USSC is seriously off track. It needs a strong
reminder that its job is to exercise the judicial power and leave the
legislative power where it was placed by the Constitution, rather than
acting like a super-legislature. We need a couple of more justices like John
Marshall Harlan.

Yeh, we need more Supremes who think like Thomas... a guy who thinks
it's ok to joke about putting pubic hairs in Coke within earshot of a
woman. Good ole Thomas. He does exactly what Scalia tells him to do.



--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

So you believe that some ignorant bumbkin who tries to "marry" his
sister is more qualified than you or I to decide the direction of the
country. Got it.

Jonathan, keep at it. You're continuing to prove my point.


That politicians can lie to you with no reprise? Yup. It's proven alright!

RB

In article ,
Dave wrote:
On 6 Oct 2004 14:29:34 -0700, (Jonathan Ganz)
said:

Yeh, we need more Supremes who think like Thomas... a guy who thinks
it's ok to joke about putting pubic hairs in Coke within earshot of a
woman. Good ole Thomas. He does exactly what Scalia tells him to do.

So tell me, Jonathan, how many opinions written by Thomas have you actually
read? How many by the other justices?

One of the differences between you and me is that I actually read USSC
decisions. And I do it fairly regularly. Not all of them, but reading some
of them comes with the territory in my job. You, on the other hand, seem to
get your views solely from the left side's propaganda mills.

So, you now claim that Thomas is the intellectual on the Court???
hahahahah!! good one Dave!


--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

In article ,
Dave wrote:
On 06 Oct 2004 21:35:08 GMT, (Bobsprit) said:

That politicians can lie to you with no reprise?

No. That folks like Ganz who haven't spent much time outside the left and
right coasts often have an extremely parochial view of the country and its
people.

I forgot. Dave is from a certain rural state where it's legal to marry
your sister.



--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

In article ,
wrote:
Those that are actually familiar to any degree refer to the "Supreme Court of
The United States" as SCOTUS, not USSC. Here's another hint so you can lie
better next time: The President is called the POTUS.

Bill, Dave is actually called POOTUS.


--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

In article ,
Dave wrote:
I ask again:

So tell me, Jonathan, how many opinions written by Thomas have you actually
read? How many by the other justices?

Come back and address the matter after you've acquired some very basic
familiarity with the subject. Else your nearly non-existent credibility
merely continues to plummet with each post.

No. I think you need to come back to the issue at hand. Bush and
Cheney are proven LIARS.


--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

In article ,
Dave wrote:
On 6 Oct 2004 16:31:06 -0700, (Jonathan Ganz)
said:

No. That folks like Ganz who haven't spent much time outside the left and
right coasts often have an extremely parochial view of the country and its
people.

I forgot. Dave is from a certain rural state where it's legal to marry
your sister.

Keep it up, Jon. Your insularity becomes more obvious with each post.

You're the one who supposedly condones marrying your sister...




--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

no
no answer will be had from ganz
he will attack and bow out
the nature of the beast
scream and yell
throw a fit
stomp his feet

but no
no answer will be had.

the democratic way you understand.
the idea of free speech you see.
being irresponsible has no bearing on the subject.

gf.


"Dave" wrote in message
...
On 6 Oct 2004 16:18:46 -0700, (Jonathan Ganz)
said:

So tell me, Jonathan, how many opinions written by Thomas have you
actually
read? How many by the other justices?

One of the differences between you and me is that I actually read USSC
decisions. And I do it fairly regularly. Not all of them, but reading
some
of them comes with the territory in my job. You, on the other hand, seem
to
get your views solely from the left side's propaganda mills.

So, you now claim that Thomas is the intellectual on the Court???
hahahahah!! good one Dave!

I ask again:

So tell me, Jonathan, how many opinions written by Thomas have you
actually
read? How many by the other justices?

Come back and address the matter after you've acquired some very basic
familiarity with the subject. Else your nearly non-existent credibility
merely continues to plummet with each post.

In article , gonefishiing wrote:
no
no answer will be had from ganz
he will attack and bow out
the nature of the beast
scream and yell
throw a fit
stomp his feet

but no
no answer will be had.

the democratic way you understand.
the idea of free speech you see.
being irresponsible has no bearing on the subject.

gf.

Perhaps, but if you go with what Dave and JoeJoe believe you don't
have free speech, you have a dictatorship.

--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

In article ,
Dave wrote:
On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 23:48:57 GMT, said:

Those that are actually familiar to any degree refer to the "Supreme Court of
The United States" as SCOTUS, not USSC.

Wrong again, Bill. Those of us who are familiar with such matters cite the
applicable case. And from the citation anyone in the know recognizes what
the court is. We then refer to the "Court."

On the other hand those wishing to affect a false familiarity with such
matters bandy about buzzwords like SCOTUS and POTUS and expect everyone to
be impressed.

You are for sure POOTUS.


--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote

So you believe that some ignorant bumbkin who tries to "marry" his
sister is more qualified than you or I to decide the direction of the
country.

Whoa there!! The grandfather of Judism, and thus of Christianity and Islam
not only married his sister but pimped her to run his badger game.

Humor aside, cities are artificial environments that insulate their
inhabitants from reality, thus making them unfit to make national decisions.

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote

I grew up saying "under God," and I don't find it offensive. It's a
tempest in a teapot.

I did not, so I do find it patently offensive. Grant's addition of "In God
We Trust" to our money was the camels nose in the tent and the next thing
anybody knew the God Eaters had saddled us with prohibition and made the
mere mention of birth control, let alone abortion was a felony punishable by
20 years in prison!! We didn't get rid of the latter until the early 1960s!
"In God We Trust" is the camel's neck.

"Dave" wrote

I certainly hope so. The USSC is seriously off track. It needs a strong
reminder that its job is to exercise the judicial power and leave the
legislative power where it was placed by the Constitution, rather than
acting like a super-legislature. ....

A primary task of the SCotUS is defending the Constitution against both the
legislature and the president. Both are prone to enact measures that the
Constitution forbids them to enact. Ditto the states. For example, the
Constitution says that "Congress shall pass no law .... abridging the
freedom of speech ...." yet Congress has done so many times. (What is so
hard to understand about "no law"?). For example, the Congress passed the
Comstock Act forbidding among other "obsceneties", the mere discussion of
birth control - and for over half a century you could have gotten 20 years
in prison for asking anyone, even your MD, how to avoid pregnancy. This
treason persisted until the early 1960s, when the SC overthrough that law.
Of course radical Christians, hell-bent on imposing papal morality, accused
the court of "acting like a super legislature".

In article ,
Vito wrote:
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote

So you believe that some ignorant bumbkin who tries to "marry" his
sister is more qualified than you or I to decide the direction of the
country.

Whoa there!! The grandfather of Judism, and thus of Christianity and Islam
not only married his sister but pimped her to run his badger game.

Humor aside, cities are artificial environments that insulate their
inhabitants from reality, thus making them unfit to make national decisions.

Damn, I thought I could get that by you guys.... g



--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

In article ,
Dave wrote:
On Thu, 7 Oct 2004 08:15:52 -0400, "Vito" said:

Humor aside, cities are artificial environments that insulate their
inhabitants from reality, thus making them unfit to make national decisions.

That certainly seems to apply in spades to San Francisco.

Really? You have a lot of exerience in SF? Where? In the gay bars no
doubt.

I agree entirely with the first part of the sentence. As to the second, it's
too broad. There are certainly some folks like Jon, whose intellectual
horizons seem to stop at the city line. There are others who appreciate that
there's a big diverse country out there with intelligent and talented people
who have reached conclusions different from those of us who live in what
Tennessee Williams called the cities' vast bee-hives, and whose conclusions
may have as much validity as our own.

Watch your mouth Dave. You don't know anything about me, and some of
my relatives are pretty good with plows and pitchforks.




--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

In article ,
Dave wrote:
On 6 Oct 2004 18:23:34 -0700, (Jonathan Ganz)
said:

I ask again:

So tell me, Jonathan, how many opinions written by Thomas have you actually
read? How many by the other justices?

Come back and address the matter after you've acquired some very basic
familiarity with the subject. Else your nearly non-existent credibility
merely continues to plummet with each post.

No. I think you need to come back to the issue at hand. Bush and
Cheney are proven LIARS.

Recall please, Jonathan that you introduced the subject of Supreme Court
nominees. Since you've now been shown to be totally ignorant of the facts
necessary to discuss the topic intelligently, you again want to change the
subject.

So how many of those opinions have you read?

Enough to know what I'm talking about. No please prove to us how many
you're read and UNDERSTOOD.

In any case, BUSH AND CHENEY ARE LIARS.




--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

In article ,
Dave wrote:
On Thu, 7 Oct 2004 08:40:40 -0400, "Vito" said:

A primary task of the SCotUS is defending the Constitution against both the
legislature and the president.

So, Vito, perhaps you could point out to me where in the Constitution I find
the words "privacy" and "abortion." I seem to have missed them. In fact I
don't think I even see a mention of them in The Federalist papers.

How about Life and Liberty? Of course, I suppose you value the barely
potential life of a damaged fetus vs. that of a healthy woman.



--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

In article ,
Vito wrote:
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote

I grew up saying "under God," and I don't find it offensive. It's a
tempest in a teapot.

I did not, so I do find it patently offensive. Grant's addition of "In God
We Trust" to our money was the camels nose in the tent and the next thing
anybody knew the God Eaters had saddled us with prohibition and made the
mere mention of birth control, let alone abortion was a felony punishable by
20 years in prison!! We didn't get rid of the latter until the early 1960s!
"In God We Trust" is the camel's neck.

I can understand it. I have no problem getting rid of all that sort of
language. I'm not offended, but I can see how others would be.




--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

In article ,
Dave wrote:
On Thu, 7 Oct 2004 08:23:34 -0400, "Vito" said:

Grant's addition of "In God
We Trust" to our money was the camels nose in the tent

You're a bit late on that one. Ever hear the phrase "endowed by their
Creator?"

Maybe their creator was Bevis and Butthead.




--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

In article ,
Dave wrote:
On 7 Oct 2004 12:18:05 -0700, (Jonathan Ganz)
said:

I agree entirely with the first part of the sentence. As to the second, it's
too broad. There are certainly some folks like Jon, whose intellectual
horizons seem to stop at the city line. There are others who appreciate that
there's a big diverse country out there with intelligent and talented people
who have reached conclusions different from those of us who live in what
Tennessee Williams called the cities' vast bee-hives, and whose conclusions
may have as much validity as our own.

Watch your mouth Dave. You don't know anything about me, and some of
my relatives are pretty good with plows and pitchforks.

Perhaps. But based on your characterization of outlanders apparently they
aren't among those intelligent and talented people I described above.

I was just talking about your and Joe's relatives, not the great
unwashed in the heartland.


--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

In article ,
Dave wrote:
On 7 Oct 2004 12:19:05 -0700, (Jonathan Ganz)
said:

So how many of those opinions have you read?

Enough to know what I'm talking about. No please prove to us how many
you're read and UNDERSTOOD.

Could you be more specific? More than 5? More than 10? More than 50?

As to the number I've understood, that depends very much on the author. Any
lawyer who tells you he understood even a majority of the opinions written
by Douglas is blowing smoke. Others write with varying degrees of clarity.
Surprisingly, Arthur Goldberg authored a few very good opinions.

But I digress. Give us an order of magnitude for the number you've read, so
we can evaluate your ability to critique Justice Thomas's ability as a
Supreme Court justice.

Under 1000, which is coincidently under the number of deaths BushCo
has caused in our military.



--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

In article ,
Dave wrote:
On 7 Oct 2004 12:21:30 -0700, (Jonathan Ganz)
said:

Of course, I suppose you value the barely
potential life of a damaged fetus vs. that of a healthy woman.

Since you raise the question, Jonathan, my views are that:

1. The federal Constitution was never intended to create federally protected
rights beyond those specifically enumerated. Protection of rights not
specifically enumerated was left to the States and to the political process.

Not true. But there's no point arguing.

2. More particularly, the "discovery" of new rights hiding in the
"penumbrae" of the 13th through 15th Amendments is a judicial invention not
sanctioned by the Constitution.

Seems to be holding its own so far.

3. Since Roe v. Wade is based on one of those judicially "discovered"
rights-- a so-called right to privacy-- the case was wrongly decided.

Same as 2.

4. Under the Constitution the power to regulate abortion properly resides in
the States, and

Except that's not the law is it?

5. As a matter of policy the States should refrain entirely from exercising
that power to regulate abortion, leaving the matter to the moral judgment of
patient and doctor.

Except that it isn't left to the moral judgement of either. It's left
to the moral judgement of the States, which is flawed, and thus the
Supremos stepped in.

--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

In article ,
Dave wrote:

On 7 Oct 2004 14:37:41 -0700, (Jonathan Ganz)
said:

Except that it isn't left to the moral judgement of either. It's left
to the moral judgement of the States, which is flawed, and thus the
Supremos stepped in.

That sort of thinking is precisely why we need a change in the Court. If you
have a system in which nine wise men can change the law whenever they think
either Congress or the States have made a mistake, adopting whatever they
think is a good idea today, you have a government by nine wise men, Not the
system our Constitution was intended to establish.

Like in the Florida election debacle? I agree!


--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

In article ,
Dave wrote:
On 7 Oct 2004 14:33:57 -0700, (Jonathan Ganz)
said:

the great
unwashed in the heartland.

I rest my case.

You need a rest.


--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

"Dave" wrote
"Vito" said:

Grant's addition of "In God
We Trust" to our money was the camels nose in the tent

You're a bit late on that one. Ever hear the phrase "endowed by their
Creator?"

Sure. It was a phrase carefully chosen to avoid mentioning "God" because
ignorant people might think "God" referred only to *their* God - the
prankster who had Abraham mutilate his penis.

As president, Jefferson found himself in a situation with the Barbary
Pirates similar to the one we find ourselves in today. Altho thrashed by
our Marines (... and the shores of Tripoli ..) the leaders of these Muslim
pirates said they had a God-given duty to attack all Christian shipping.
Jefferson replied that the USA was NOT a Christian nation but rather a
secular nation cantaining Christians and other diverse faiths. That point
made the pirates made peace, but continued to ravage other nations'
commerce. That gave our merchant shipping a rather nice leg up in the Med.

Too bad we forgot that example when displaced European Jews invaded
Palistine.

"Dave" wrote

So, Vito, perhaps you could point out to me where in the Constitution I
find the words "privacy" and "abortion."

First, please understand that the Constitution does NOT give us "rights", it
describes the construct of the government and assigns powers to it. It also
forbids the government any power not so delegated. Thus the absence of
"privacy" and "abortion" mean that the government has no authority to
regulate them.

Ever heard of the 9th amendment? It addressed that very issue by stating
that "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." So the
absence of these words clearly does NOT mean rights do not exist, as the
lunatic fringe of some churches assert. Just the opposite! See
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/c...n/amendment09/

"Aside from contending that a bill of rights was unnecessary, the
Federalists responded to those opposing ratification of the Constitution
because of the lack of a declaration of fundamental rights by arguing that
inasmuch as it would be impossible to list all rights it would be dangerous
to list some because there would be those who would seize on the absence of
the omitted rights to assert that government was unrestrained as to those.
Madison adverted to this argument in presenting his proposed amendments to
the House of Representatives. ''It has been objected also against a bill of
rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it
would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and
it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled
out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government,
and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments
I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this
system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted
it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth
resolution.'' It is clear from its text and from Madison's statement that
the Amendment states a rule of construction, making clear that a Bill of
Rights might not by implication be taken to increase the powers of the
national government in areas not enumerated. .....
"The Ninth Amendment had been mentioned infrequently in decisions of the
Supreme Court until it became the subject of some exegesis by several of
the Justices in Griswold v. Connecticut. There a statute prohibiting use of
contraceptives was voided as an infringement of the right of marital
privacy. Justice Douglas, writing the opinion of the Court, asserted that
the ''specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by
emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance.
Thus, while privacy is nowhere mentioned, it is one of the values served and
protected by the First Amendment, through its protection of associational
rights, and by the Third, the Fourth, and the Fifth Amendments as well. The
Justice recurred to the text of the Ninth Amendment to support the thought
that these penumbral rights are protected by one Amendment or a complex of
Amendments despite the absence of a specific reference. Justice Goldberg,
concurring, devoted several pages to the Amendment.


''The language and history of the Ninth Amendment reveal that the Framers of
the Constitution believed that there are additional fundamental rights,
protected from governmental infringement, which exist alongside those
fundamental rights specifically mentioned in the first eight constitutional
amendments. . . . To hold that a right so basic and fundamental and so
deep-rooted in our society as the right of privacy in marriage may be
infringed because that right is not guaranteed in so many words by the first
eight amendments to the Constitution is to ignore the Ninth Amendment and to
give it no effect whatsoever. Moreover, a judicial construction that this
fundamental right is not protected by the Constitution because it is not
mentioned in explicit terms by one of the first eight amendments or
elsewhere in the Constitution would violate the Ninth Amendment."

Please note that birth control, not abortion, was illegal in most states
until 1965, enforcing the religious idiocy that one should avoid sex except
to produce a baby. That's what the Jerry Falwell camp calls "the good old
days". People reaching puberty after 1965 cannot imagine what it was like
when even in "liberal" California a full 2/3 of brides came pregnant to the
alter and most families had unwanted children. Many refuse to believe
America was ever so stupid.

"Dave" wrote
Since you raise the question, Jonathan, my views are that:

1. The federal Constitution was never intended to create federally
protected
rights beyond those specifically enumerated. Protection of rights not
specifically enumerated was left to the States and to the political
process.

Your views are not only wrong, they are disputed by ALL of the framers of
the Constitution and are specifically refuted by the ninth amendment.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/c...mendment09/#f5

Funny how you're willing to defend right-wing agendas not matter what!

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On 7 Oct 2004 19:43:07 -0700, (Jonathan Ganz)
said:

If you
have a system in which nine wise men can change the law whenever they
think
either Congress or the States have made a mistake, adopting whatever they
think is a good idea today, you have a government by nine wise men, Not
the
system our Constitution was intended to establish.

Like in the Florida election debacle? I agree!

Not exactly. The words "equal protection" (on which, if I recall, the
decision was based) do at least appear in the Constitution. In a larger
sense, yes. The decision to take the case was an outgrowth of the same
kind
of judicial activism that led the Court to invent new "rights" in areas
the
founders intended to be dealt with by the political, rather than the
judicial, process. Funny how in liberal circles judicial activism is
celebrated only when the decisions go their way, how expediency trumps
principle.

Of course they are Vito! Dave is nothing more than a empty-headed right wing
wacko, who has no ability to think on his own. He spouts the right wing
agenda, rather than actually thinking.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Vito" wrote in message
...
"Dave" wrote
Since you raise the question, Jonathan, my views are that:

1. The federal Constitution was never intended to create federally
protected
rights beyond those specifically enumerated. Protection of rights not
specifically enumerated was left to the States and to the political
process.

Your views are not only wrong, they are disputed by ALL of the framers of
the Constitution and are specifically refuted by the ninth amendment.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/c...mendment09/#f5

You'll notice that Dave doesn't respond when confronted with the actual
truth.
He's just a poodle and not a very mature one.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Vito" wrote in message
...
"Dave" wrote

So, Vito, perhaps you could point out to me where in the Constitution I
find the words "privacy" and "abortion."

First, please understand that the Constitution does NOT give us "rights",
it
describes the construct of the government and assigns powers to it. It
also
forbids the government any power not so delegated. Thus the absence of
"privacy" and "abortion" mean that the government has no authority to
regulate them.

Ever heard of the 9th amendment? It addressed that very issue by stating
that "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." So the
absence of these words clearly does NOT mean rights do not exist, as the
lunatic fringe of some churches assert. Just the opposite! See
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/c...n/amendment09/

"Aside from contending that a bill of rights was unnecessary, the
Federalists responded to those opposing ratification of the Constitution
because of the lack of a declaration of fundamental rights by arguing that
inasmuch as it would be impossible to list all rights it would be
dangerous
to list some because there would be those who would seize on the absence
of
the omitted rights to assert that government was unrestrained as to those.
Madison adverted to this argument in presenting his proposed amendments to
the House of Representatives. ''It has been objected also against a bill
of
rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power,
it
would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration;
and
it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled
out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General
Government,
and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible
arguments
I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this
system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted
it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth
resolution.'' It is clear from its text and from Madison's statement that
the Amendment states a rule of construction, making clear that a Bill of
Rights might not by implication be taken to increase the powers of the
national government in areas not enumerated. .....
"The Ninth Amendment had been mentioned infrequently in decisions of the
Supreme Court until it became the subject of some exegesis by several of
the Justices in Griswold v. Connecticut. There a statute prohibiting use
of
contraceptives was voided as an infringement of the right of marital
privacy. Justice Douglas, writing the opinion of the Court, asserted that
the ''specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by
emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance.
Thus, while privacy is nowhere mentioned, it is one of the values served
and
protected by the First Amendment, through its protection of associational
rights, and by the Third, the Fourth, and the Fifth Amendments as well.
The
Justice recurred to the text of the Ninth Amendment to support the thought
that these penumbral rights are protected by one Amendment or a complex of
Amendments despite the absence of a specific reference. Justice Goldberg,
concurring, devoted several pages to the Amendment.


''The language and history of the Ninth Amendment reveal that the Framers
of
the Constitution believed that there are additional fundamental rights,
protected from governmental infringement, which exist alongside those
fundamental rights specifically mentioned in the first eight
constitutional
amendments. . . . To hold that a right so basic and fundamental and so
deep-rooted in our society as the right of privacy in marriage may be
infringed because that right is not guaranteed in so many words by the
first
eight amendments to the Constitution is to ignore the Ninth Amendment and
to
give it no effect whatsoever. Moreover, a judicial construction that this
fundamental right is not protected by the Constitution because it is not
mentioned in explicit terms by one of the first eight amendments or
elsewhere in the Constitution would violate the Ninth Amendment."

Please note that birth control, not abortion, was illegal in most states
until 1965, enforcing the religious idiocy that one should avoid sex
except
to produce a baby. That's what the Jerry Falwell camp calls "the good old
days". People reaching puberty after 1965 cannot imagine what it was like
when even in "liberal" California a full 2/3 of brides came pregnant to
the
alter and most families had unwanted children. Many refuse to believe
America was ever so stupid.