|
Retrieving an overboard part
On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 12:46:48 -0500, Wilbur Hubbard wrote:
"Voyager255" wrote in message news:961ab3bc-7f25-44e6- ... On Dec 8, 4:08 pm, "KLC Lewis" wrote: "Wilbur Hubbard" wrote in message anews.com... I am a proud conservative/libertarian who thinks the Constitution is written in stone - not some living, breathing document meant to be tossed aside when convenient to do so. Wilbur Hubbard If the Constitution is written in stone, on what substrate do we find the Amendments? | Kudos!!! Your ignorance is showing. Duh! Amendments 1-10 are called the Bill of Rights. They were part of the Constitution when it was ratified. Wrong. |
Retrieving an overboard part
wrote in message t... On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 12:46:48 -0500, Wilbur Hubbard wrote: "Voyager255" wrote in message news:961ab3bc-7f25-44e6- ... On Dec 8, 4:08 pm, "KLC Lewis" wrote: "Wilbur Hubbard" wrote in message anews.com... I am a proud conservative/libertarian who thinks the Constitution is written in stone - not some living, breathing document meant to be tossed aside when convenient to do so. Wilbur Hubbard If the Constitution is written in stone, on what substrate do we find the Amendments? | Kudos!!! Your ignorance is showing. Duh! Amendments 1-10 are called the Bill of Rights. They were part of the Constitution when it was ratified. Wrong. From Wiki: "Madison proposed the Bill of Rights while ideological conflict between Federalists and anti-Federalists, dating from the 1787 Philadelphia Convention, threatened the overall ratification of the new national Constitution. It largely responded to the Constitution's influential opponents, including prominent Founding Fathers, who argued that the Constitution should not be ratified because it failed to protect the basic principles of human liberty. The Bill was influenced by George Mason's 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights, the 1689 English Bill of Rights, works of the Age of Enlightenment pertaining to natural rights, and earlier English political documents such as Magna Carta (1215)." In other words the Constitution would not have been ratified without the Bill of Rights BEING INCLUDED. I hope this helps. |
Retrieving an overboard part
On 9 Dec 2008 12:14:06 -0600, Dave wrote:
On Tue, 9 Dec 2008 12:46:48 -0500, "Wilbur Hubbard" said: Your ignorance is showing. Duh! Amendments 1-10 are called the Bill of Rights. They were part of the Constitution when it was ratified. I don't think it's his ignorance that's showing, Neal. Better do a bit more googling on the topic, because you're totally wrong. Normal operation for Neil. Cheers, Bruce (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) |
Retrieving an overboard part
"Dave" wrote in message ... On Tue, 9 Dec 2008 15:06:41 -0500, "Gregory Hall" said: From Wiki: "Madison proposed the Bill of Rights while ideological conflict between Federalists and anti-Federalists, dating from the 1787 Philadelphia Convention, threatened the overall ratification of the new national Constitution. It largely responded to the Constitution's influential opponents, including prominent Founding Fathers, who argued that the Constitution should not be ratified because it failed to protect the basic principles of human liberty. The Bill was influenced by George Mason's 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights, the 1689 English Bill of Rights, works of the Age of Enlightenment pertaining to natural rights, and earlier English political documents such as Magna Carta (1215)." In other words the Constitution would not have been ratified without the Bill of Rights BEING INCLUDED. I hope this helps. Well, I see you took some of my advice and googled a bit more, Neal. Too bad you couldn't just step up like a man and fess up your error instead of trying to send in another of your socks to try muddying the waters. Unfortunately, you still aren't even close. The Constitution, sans Bill of Rights, was ratified by the last State in 1788, and became effective in 1789. The first 10 Amendments were ratified later, and became effective in 1791 Neal, who? But, anyways, the point is the ratification of the Bill of Rights was a process that started at about the same time the Constitution was put forth for ratification. It just took longer for the necessary number of states to ratify the ten amendments. A couple of states refused to ratify the Constitution unless and until a Bill of Rights was included for ratification by the states. It wasn't a case of Constitution first/Bill of Rights second. It was a concurrent affair. Friggin' history illiterates!!!! -- Gregory Hall |
Retrieving an overboard part
On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 16:46:57 -0500, Gregory Hall wrote:
Neal, who? But, anyways, the point is the ratification of the Bill of Rights was a process that started at about the same time the Constitution was put forth for ratification. It just took longer for the necessary number of states to ratify the ten amendments. A couple of states refused to ratify the Constitution unless and until a Bill of Rights was included for ratification by the states. It wasn't a case of Constitution first/Bill of Rights second. It was a concurrent affair. Friggin' history illiterates!!!! And Neal is still wrong. "Amendments 1-10 are called the Bill of Rights. They were part of the Constitution when it was ratified." The Bill of Rights was not part of the Constitution when it was ratified. |
Retrieving an overboard part
|
Retrieving an overboard part
"Wilbur Hubbard" wrote in message anews.com... "Voyager255" wrote in message ... On Dec 8, 4:08 pm, "KLC Lewis" wrote: "Wilbur Hubbard" wrote in message anews.com... I am a proud conservative/libertarian who thinks the Constitution is written in stone - not some living, breathing document meant to be tossed aside when convenient to do so. Wilbur Hubbard If the Constitution is written in stone, on what substrate do we find the Amendments? | Kudos!!! Your ignorance is showing. Duh! Amendments 1-10 are called the Bill of Rights. They were part of the Constitution when it was ratified. Actually, not. The Bill of Rights was introduced approximately two years after the Constitution, and weren't ratified until December of 1791, two and a half years after the Constitution itself had been ratified. Amendments 11-27 were created thereafter ACCORDING TO THE RULES SET FORTH IN THE CONSTITUTION. The existence of amendments, in no way, indicates a living, breathing Constitution. Choice of terms. The existence of amendments shows that the Constitution can be shaped to fit the times in which we are living. Ugly, ignorant Americans. It's a disgrace! Most don't even know their own history. Wilbur Hubbard |
Retrieving an overboard part
"WaIIy" wrote in message ... On Tue, 9 Dec 2008 17:37:26 -0600, "KLC Lewis" wrote: Choice of terms. The existence of amendments shows that the Constitution can be shaped to fit the times in which we are living. That's only partly true and you know it. "Only partly true..."? Sure. The amendment process can take a long time and be a difficult task. Nevertheless, if the will to amend the Constitition is there, it can be done. Since the Constitition was ratified, it has been amended 27 times -- hardly what I would call "written in stone." |
Retrieving an overboard part
On Dec 9, 3:57*pm, "KLC Lewis" wrote:
"WaIIy" wrote in message ... On Tue, 9 Dec 2008 17:37:26 -0600, "KLC Lewis" wrote: Choice of terms. The existence of amendments shows that the Constitution can be shaped to fit the times in which we are living. That's only partly true and you know it. "Only partly true..."? Sure. The amendment process can take a long time and be a difficult task. Nevertheless, if the will to amend the Constitition is there, it can be done. Since the Constitition was ratified, it has been amended 27 times -- hardly what I would call "written in stone." IIRC several of those amendments where made just after it was ratified. I dunno much about it i was not alive then. but my famielies sig is on both doc's. |
Retrieving an overboard part
"Two meter troll" wrote in message
... On Dec 9, 3:57 pm, "KLC Lewis" wrote: "WaIIy" wrote in message ... On Tue, 9 Dec 2008 17:37:26 -0600, "KLC Lewis" wrote: Choice of terms. The existence of amendments shows that the Constitution can be shaped to fit the times in which we are living. That's only partly true and you know it. "Only partly true..."? Sure. The amendment process can take a long time and be a difficult task. Nevertheless, if the will to amend the Constitition is there, it can be done. Since the Constitition was ratified, it has been amended 27 times -- hardly what I would call "written in stone." ++IIRC several of those amendments where made just after it was ++ratified. ++I dunno much about it i was not alive then. but my famielies sig is on ++both doc's. Two? -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Retrieving an overboard part
On Dec 9, 7:06*pm, "Capt. JG" wrote:
"Two meter troll" wrote in ... On Dec 9, 3:57 pm, "KLC Lewis" wrote: "WaIIy" wrote in message .. . On Tue, 9 Dec 2008 17:37:26 -0600, "KLC Lewis" wrote: Choice of terms. The existence of amendments shows that the Constitution can be shaped to fit the times in which we are living. That's only partly true and you know it. "Only partly true..."? Sure. The amendment process can take a long time and be a difficult task. Nevertheless, if the will to amend the Constitition is there, it can be done. Since the Constitition was ratified, it has been amended 27 times -- hardly what I would call "written in stone." ++IIRC several of those amendments where made just after it was ++ratified. ++I dunno much about it i was not alive then. but my famielies sig is on ++both doc's. Two? -- "j" ganz - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - there are drafts of more than one document from that time that reguard the decliration and the rights contained. as well as the contenental congress papers that also had some of those basic rights written out. frankly i think the gggggfather that was involved should have shot the whole lot of them in the head and kept his word to the king. |
Retrieving an overboard part
Frogwatch schrieb: directions well). ANY ideas to get it sooner? I am sure I will end up going in the water and diving fro it but really dont want too. I hate diving deep cuz I cannot relieve the pressure in my ears. Hello, you should learn how to equalize the pressure in your ears, it is very easy if you know how. One method ist to hold your nose closed with two fingers and to press air slowly and carefully against the closed nose. You will hear a clicking noise at both ears when the pressure is equalized. This will work above water too for a test. But dont use high pressure, if it does not work with small to medium pressure you should ask a medical doctor specialised on ears. Bye |
Retrieving an overboard part
"Dave" wrote in message ... On Tue, 9 Dec 2008 17:37:26 -0600, "KLC Lewis" said: Choice of terms. The existence of amendments shows that the Constitution can be shaped to fit the times in which we are living. And also the means by which this shaping is to be done. It ain't by majority vote of a panel of nine wise men. You'd be hard pressed to find those "nine wise men" in any event. |
Retrieving an overboard part
"Dave" wrote in message
... On Tue, 9 Dec 2008 17:37:26 -0600, "KLC Lewis" said: Choice of terms. The existence of amendments shows that the Constitution can be shaped to fit the times in which we are living. And also the means by which this shaping is to be done. It ain't by majority vote of a panel of nine wise men. If you're talking about the Supremes, then I believe there's a woman on the bench at the moment. LOL -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Retrieving an overboard part
"Dave" wrote in message
... On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 10:57:36 -0800, "Capt. JG" said: If you're talking about the Supremes, then I believe there's a woman on the bench at the moment. LOL Stop being so PC, Jon. Do you really think that "all men are created equal" applies only to males? Some are more equal than others. LOL -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Retrieving an overboard part
Dave wrote:
On Tue, 9 Dec 2008 17:37:26 -0600, "KLC Lewis" said: Choice of terms. The existence of amendments shows that the Constitution can be shaped to fit the times in which we are living. And also the means by which this shaping is to be done. It ain't by majority vote of a panel of nine wise men. Under what authority was the Supreme Court created? Or perhaps phrased differently, from whence does the authority of said court come? Cheers Martin |
Retrieving an overboard part
"Marty" wrote in message
... Dave wrote: On Tue, 9 Dec 2008 17:37:26 -0600, "KLC Lewis" said: Choice of terms. The existence of amendments shows that the Constitution can be shaped to fit the times in which we are living. And also the means by which this shaping is to be done. It ain't by majority vote of a panel of nine wise men. Under what authority was the Supreme Court created? Or perhaps phrased differently, from whence does the authority of said court come? Cheers Martin Ummm... it's a constitutional authority. But ultimately its authority comes from the people I suppose. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Retrieving an overboard part
Capt. JG wrote:
"Marty" wrote in message ... Dave wrote: On Tue, 9 Dec 2008 17:37:26 -0600, "KLC Lewis" said: Choice of terms. The existence of amendments shows that the Constitution can be shaped to fit the times in which we are living. And also the means by which this shaping is to be done. It ain't by majority vote of a panel of nine wise men. Under what authority was the Supreme Court created? Or perhaps phrased differently, from whence does the authority of said court come? Cheers Martin Ummm... it's a constitutional authority. I'm no US Constitutional Scholar, but that is what I thought. Now, I presume that the Constitution not only in effect creates the Supreme Court, but also sets forth the role and responsibilities of this august body? Possibly the manner in which it carries out these duties? If this is the case, could one you nice Americans perhaps succinctly and clearly answer these questions? Cheers Martin |
Retrieving an overboard part
"Marty" wrote in message ... Capt. JG wrote: I'm no US Constitutional Scholar, but that is what I thought. Now, I presume that the Constitution not only in effect creates the Supreme Court, but also sets forth the role and responsibilities of this august body? Possibly the manner in which it carries out these duties? If this is the case, could one you nice Americans perhaps succinctly and clearly answer these questions? Cheers Martin Article III of the Constitution more or less describes the Supreme Court and its authority, along with other federal courts. The make-up of the Supreme Court is not defined in the Constitution -- it could be one Justice or fifty-seven and a half, depending upon current law -- and they can choose to hear cases or not at their own discretion. While a Supreme Court decision is the final word on a matter, a later Supreme Court could choose to revisit a previous decision and even overturn it. For that matter, there's nothing that says a current Supreme Court can't give a decision and then reverse itself the next day. "All Law is Opinion." -- KLC Lewis |
Retrieving an overboard part
On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 19:29:20 -0500, Marty wrote:
Now, I presume that the Constitution not only in effect creates the Supreme Court, but also sets forth the role and responsibilities of this august body? Possibly the manner in which it carries out these duties? The Constitution sets out a minimalist framework for the Judicial branch. That framework was developed by historical precedent. Perhaps most importantly, by John Marshall. http://www.supremecourthistory.org/0...ry/02_c04.html |
Retrieving an overboard part
"Dave" wrote in message ... On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 19:01:12 -0500, Marty said: Under what authority was the Supreme Court created? Or perhaps phrased differently, from whence does the authority of said court come? What does that have to do with whether the Supreme Court is entitled to amend the Constitution? When has it done so? |
Retrieving an overboard part
"Dave" wrote in message ... On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 19:01:12 -0500, Marty said: Under what authority was the Supreme Court created? Or perhaps phrased differently, from whence does the authority of said court come? What does that have to do with whether the Supreme Court is entitled to amend the Constitution? The Constitution can only be amended according to the procedure set forth in the Constitution. It is unconstitutional for any court to amend the Constitution. Wilbur Hubbard |
Retrieving an overboard part
"Dave" wrote in message ... On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 10:08:59 -0600, "KLC Lewis" said: What does that have to do with whether the Supreme Court is entitled to amend the Constitution? When has it done so? Frequently, going all the way back to Dred Scott, the Slaughterhouse Cases, and Lochner v. NY, running through the reapportionment cases, the various abortion cases, Lawrence v. Texas (holding that the 14th Amendment created a right to commit sodomy), and on and on. Among recent cases the dead giveaway is reference to finding some newly created right hiding in the "penumbra" or being an "emanation" of the 14th amendment, lying in the shadows and undiscovered for some 140 years. (Which clause is it where I'd find the words "privacy" and "third trimester?") And before you start dragging out all the old war horses, let me say I do not disagree with the result in Brown v. Board of Ed., and I generally favor minimum if any legal restrictions on abortion. At the same time it's pretty clear that the latter is not a topic anyone thought was addressed by the 14th Amendment until the Supremes decided to replace intentions of those approving the Amendment with whatever the nine wise men happened to think is a good idea on a particular day. You have demonstrated not that the Supreme Court has amended the Constitution, but that they have given opinions, which according to the Constitution have the weight of Law, that you disagree with. I often disagree with Supreme Court decisions myself -- but such decisions are not new amendments. |
Retrieving an overboard part
"Dave" wrote in message
... On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 10:08:59 -0600, "KLC Lewis" said: What does that have to do with whether the Supreme Court is entitled to amend the Constitution? When has it done so? Frequently, going all the way back to Dred Scott, the Slaughterhouse Cases, and Lochner v. NY, running through the reapportionment cases, the various abortion cases, Lawrence v. Texas (holding that the 14th Amendment created a right to commit sodomy), and on and on. Among recent cases the dead giveaway is reference to finding some newly created right hiding in the "penumbra" or being an "emanation" of the 14th amendment, lying in the shadows and undiscovered for some 140 years. (Which clause is it where I'd find the words "privacy" and "third trimester?") And before you start dragging out all the old war horses, let me say I do not disagree with the result in Brown v. Board of Ed., and I generally favor minimum if any legal restrictions on abortion. At the same time it's pretty clear that the latter is not a topic anyone thought was addressed by the 14th Amendment until the Supremes decided to replace intentions of those approving the Amendment with whatever the nine wise men happened to think is a good idea on a particular day. Interesting, but you said earlier that the Supremes have "amended" the Constitution. I know they've ruled on various aspects of it, but I didn't realize they actually amended it. Is there not a requirement for 2/3 of States to ratify before that happens? -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Retrieving an overboard part
Dave wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 19:01:12 -0500, Marty said: Under what authority was the Supreme Court created? Or perhaps phrased differently, from whence does the authority of said court come? What does that have to do with whether the Supreme Court is entitled to amend the Constitution? Nothing, unless the Constitution gives them that power; I don't think it does, correct me if I'm wrong. Has the Supreme Court amended the Constitution? If so what are the Amendment numbers please? Cheers Martin |
Retrieving an overboard part
"Dave" wrote in message
... On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 10:50:42 -0800, "Capt. JG" said: I didn't realize they actually amended it. Is there not a requirement for 2/3 of States to ratify before that happens? Precisely the point. So, then they didn't actually amend it. Thanks for the confirmation. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Retrieving an overboard part
"Marty" wrote in message
... Dave wrote: On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 19:01:12 -0500, Marty said: Under what authority was the Supreme Court created? Or perhaps phrased differently, from whence does the authority of said court come? What does that have to do with whether the Supreme Court is entitled to amend the Constitution? Nothing, unless the Constitution gives them that power; I don't think it does, correct me if I'm wrong. Has the Supreme Court amended the Constitution? If so what are the Amendment numbers please? Cheers Martin 43 to 107.... duhhh. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Retrieving an overboard part
"Dave" wrote in message ... On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 12:46:32 -0600, "KLC Lewis" said: When the Court "discovers" new rights which no rational person could believe were in the minds of those ratifying the Constitution or applicable amendments, they have changed the document without following the procedure called for to change it. Whether you choose to call that an amendment of the document or not is rather beside the point. It does represent exercise of a function which goes well beyond the judicial function of resolving cases or controversies in accordance with law. The Constitution itself provides for the mooting of laws which are repugnant to the Constitition. It is the Supreme Court which makes rulings on whether or not laws violate the Constitution, or the rights of Citizens, whether those Citizens are in the majority or minority, and whether the laws are popularly-supported or not. Interpretation of the meaning of specific clauses in the Constitution is also within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. |
Retrieving an overboard part
"Dave" wrote in message ... On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 14:30:23 -0500, Marty said: Has the Supreme Court amended the Constitution? If so what are the Amendment numbers please? You can identify some of them pretty easily. Just do a search for the words "privacy," "penumbra," "first trimester," "sodomy" and "one man one vote." What's that you say? You can't find those words? Well, I'll be damned! The Fourth Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. |
Retrieving an overboard part
"KLC Lewis" wrote in message
et... "Dave" wrote in message ... On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 14:30:23 -0500, Marty said: Has the Supreme Court amended the Constitution? If so what are the Amendment numbers please? You can identify some of them pretty easily. Just do a search for the words "privacy," "penumbra," "first trimester," "sodomy" and "one man one vote." What's that you say? You can't find those words? Well, I'll be damned! The Fourth Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Yes, and the court is within its purview to interpret that and other sections. It's not within their purview to amend the constitution. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Retrieving an overboard part
Dave wrote:
On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 14:30:23 -0500, Marty said: Has the Supreme Court amended the Constitution? If so what are the Amendment numbers please? You can identify some of them pretty easily. Just do a search for the words "privacy," "penumbra," "first trimester," "sodomy" and "one man one vote." What's that you say? You can't find those words? Well, I'll be damned! Your are a bit of on odd duck Dave. I can remember asking you just what you thought the meaning of the Second Amendment was and you expressed the sentiment that you had no opinion because the Supreme Court had not rendered an opinion,, Now it appears that when the Court renders an opinion that you disagree with, you accuse them of being mentally incompetent. You do agree that Constitution and later history imbues the Court with the power to interpret the Constitution, and if they interpret in a way that fits with your rather right of center views that's fine. If they interpret otherwise you accuse them of "amending". Cheers Martin |
Retrieving an overboard part
"Capt. JG" wrote in message ... "KLC Lewis" wrote in message et... "Dave" wrote in message ... On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 14:30:23 -0500, Marty said: Has the Supreme Court amended the Constitution? If so what are the Amendment numbers please? You can identify some of them pretty easily. Just do a search for the words "privacy," "penumbra," "first trimester," "sodomy" and "one man one vote." What's that you say? You can't find those words? Well, I'll be damned! The Fourth Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Yes, and the court is within its purview to interpret that and other sections. It's not within their purview to amend the constitution. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com Agreed. But then, they haven't done so. |
Retrieving an overboard part
"Dave" wrote in message ... On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 14:21:56 -0600, "KLC Lewis" said: The Constitution itself provides for the mooting of laws which are repugnant to the Constitition. It is the Supreme Court which makes rulings on whether or not laws violate the Constitution, or the rights of Citizens, whether those Citizens are in the majority or minority, and whether the laws are popularly-supported or not. Interpretation of the meaning of specific clauses in the Constitution is also within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Aside from your rather sloppy use of the word "provides," what does that have to do with the price of beans? (Hint re 1st phrase: the Constitution does not "provide" for judicial review. Judicial the power of judicial review is an inference drawn by Marshall in Marbury v. Madison from the document's use of the term "judicial power of the United States." Prior to Marbury there was respected opinion, including that of Jefferson, that there was no such power of judicial review.) And Jefferson thought it was fine and dandy to own other people. Women in most of America weren't allowed to own property in their own name if they were married, and were generally considered to be the property or ward of some man, somewhere. Your point is? |
Retrieving an overboard part
"Dave" wrote in message ... On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 14:35:05 -0600, "KLC Lewis" said: On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 14:30:23 -0500, Marty said: Has the Supreme Court amended the Constitution? If so what are the Amendment numbers please? You can identify some of them pretty easily. Just do a search for the words "privacy," "penumbra," "first trimester," "sodomy" and "one man one vote." What's that you say? You can't find those words? Well, I'll be damned! The Fourth Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. ????? You're becoming less rational with each post, Karin Not at all. The right of privacy is implicit in the first 24 words of that Amendment. You seem to have a real problem with "sodomy." I'll bet you dollars against donuts that you've committed it yourself. Wanna go to prison for it? Do you think it's anyone's business what you do in the privacy of your own bedroom with a consenting adult of your choosing? Since you seem to be focusing on the exact words of the Constitution, rather than its meaning, do you find anywhere within that document a right to own clothing? I submit that no such right exists, as the words "right to own clothing" appear nowhere within the Constitution. You are therefore required to go naked. |
Retrieving an overboard part
On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 16:24:04 -0500, Marty wrote:
Dave wrote: On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 14:30:23 -0500, Marty said: Has the Supreme Court amended the Constitution? If so what are the Amendment numbers please? You can identify some of them pretty easily. Just do a search for the words "privacy," "penumbra," "first trimester," "sodomy" and "one man one vote." What's that you say? You can't find those words? Well, I'll be damned! Your are a bit of on odd duck Dave. I can remember asking you just what you thought the meaning of the Second Amendment was and you expressed the sentiment that you had no opinion because the Supreme Court had not rendered an opinion,, Now it appears that when the Court renders an opinion that you disagree with, you accuse them of being mentally incompetent. You do agree that Constitution and later history imbues the Court with the power to interpret the Constitution, and if they interpret in a way that fits with your rather right of center views that's fine. If they interpret otherwise you accuse them of "amending". Cheers Martin Similar to the use of the phrase "Activist Judges", who are judges that rule against your position. |
Retrieving an overboard part
"Dave" wrote in message ... On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 15:34:54 -0600, "KLC Lewis" said: And Jefferson thought it was fine and dandy to own other people. Women in most of America weren't allowed to own property in their own name if they were married, and were generally considered to be the property or ward of some man, somewhere. Your point is? That your dissertations are rapidly descending into rants having nothing to do with the topic under discussion. The above is an apt illustration. My statements have everything to do with the topic under discussion. Times change. Supreme Court decisions change with the times. They have yet to amend the Constitution. |
Retrieving an overboard part
"Dave" wrote in message ... On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 15:42:40 -0600, "KLC Lewis" said: Not at all. The right of privacy is implicit in the first 24 words of that Amendment. You seem to have a real problem with "sodomy." I'll bet you dollars against donuts that you've committed it yourself. Wanna go to prison for it? Do you think it's anyone's business what you do in the privacy of your own bedroom with a consenting adult of your choosing? Typical muddle-headed reasoning. You confuse the question whether something is desirable with the question whether that something is guaranteed by the Constitution. It may or may not be desirable to allow a State to prosecute Barney Frank for cornholing his boyfriend in the privacy of their bedroom. But I'm reasonably sure that those ratifying the Fourteenth Amendment (the Fourth applies directly only to the federal government) didn't think they were guaranteeing Mr. Frank the right to cornhole his boyfriend without State interference. Since you seem to be focusing on the exact words of the Constitution, rather than its meaning, do you find anywhere within that document a right to own clothing? I submit that no such right exists, as the words "right to own clothing" appear nowhere within the Constitution. You are therefore required to go naked. Another typical fallacy. You assume that unless the government has explicitly said one may do something, he may not do it--all that is not explicitly permitted is forbidden. Worse, you assume not only that some part of the government must explicitly say I may do something, but that the Constitution must say I may do it--if the Constitution doesn't say I may own clothing I may not own clothing. You're really going off the deep end. Ever hear of "enumerated powers"? With thinking like yours about, I guess the founding fathers were not at all far afield in deciding the Tenth Amendment was needed. Actually, I was using sarcasm to defeat your position. Sorry you missed it. On the one hand you assert that no right to privacy exists because the word "privacy" doesn't appear in the Constitution; on the other, you assert that the right to wear clothing doesn't have to be enumerated in order to exist. I assert that in BOTH cases, the right is implied within the Constitution itself, regardless of enumeration. See the fourth amendment, the ninth and the tenth. |
Retrieving an overboard part
Dave wrote:
On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 16:24:04 -0500, Marty said: Your are a bit of on odd duck Dave. I am perhaps sui generis. Now it appears that when the Court renders an opinion that you disagree with, you accuse them of being mentally incompetent. Please identify the post in which I suggested that the Court or any of its members is mentally incompetent. You do understand, I assume, that being wrong is not the same as being mentally incompetent. That would be: "When the Court "discovers" new rights which no rational person could believe were in the minds of those ratifying the Constitution or applicable amendments, they have changed the document without following the procedure called for to change it" The bit about "no rational person" rather implies mental incompetency does it not? Cheers Martin |
Retrieving an overboard part
"KLC Lewis" wrote in message
et... "Dave" wrote in message ... On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 15:34:54 -0600, "KLC Lewis" said: And Jefferson thought it was fine and dandy to own other people. Women in most of America weren't allowed to own property in their own name if they were married, and were generally considered to be the property or ward of some man, somewhere. Your point is? That your dissertations are rapidly descending into rants having nothing to do with the topic under discussion. The above is an apt illustration. My statements have everything to do with the topic under discussion. Times change. Supreme Court decisions change with the times. They have yet to amend the Constitution. Dave is frustrated because the Supreme Court didn't get involved in the recent presidential election process. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Retrieving an overboard part
"Dave" wrote in message
... On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 12:05:57 -0800, "Capt. JG" said: "Dave" wrote in message . .. On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 10:50:42 -0800, "Capt. JG" said: I didn't realize they actually amended it. Is there not a requirement for 2/3 of States to ratify before that happens? Precisely the point. So, then they didn't actually amend it. Thanks for the confirmation. The second Justice Harlan perhaps put it best. "This Court...does not serve its high purpose when it exceeds its authority, even to satisfy justified impatience with the slow workings of the political process. For when, in the name of constitutional interpretation, the Court adds something to the Constitution that was deliberately excluded from it, the Court, in reality, substitutes its view of what should be so for the amending process." Harlan's dissenting opinion in Reynolds v. Sims Ah, so it's an opinion. Did that amend the Constitution also? LOL Keep at it Dave... it's a joy to watch you twist in the wind! -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:47 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com