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

"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.

"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?

"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.

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.

"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" 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.

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

"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

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 12:05:57 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

"Dave" wrote in message
news
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