Discussion in 'Political Satire' started by guno, Mar 30, 2014.
Show us the Moral law part?
Since the thread is premised on a news outlet that is akin to The Onion, it seems likely to generate some flames. Ergo, maybe it no longer belongs in "politics." Shouldn't the thread be moved to a safer venue?
I think the Rubber Room is a good place for it.
Unsurprisingly, you are ignoring what I said... because you can't refute it. Pretending it wasn't said, is about all you have left.
Laws that other countries have, are fine for this country... IF they are included in the Constitution, which some of them are. The ones that were not included, were left out for good reason. And no, those are NOT good enough for this country.
Plus, you are desperately pretending the Constitution couldn't be changed in 230 years, even though you know it was... and also know that the people also decided NOT to change it many times. Especially when unthinking leftists such as yourself tried to propose changes they didn't want.
So much pretension and fakery from these leftist losers. Don't you people ever get tired of that?
Back to the subject:
We can, and do, change the Constitution any time enough people want to, to fulfill the requirements we agreed on.
But it remains that most Americans are fundamentally conservative - people who believe that the government shouldn't have much influence in their lives. As a result, the like the Constitution pretty much like it is, assigning only limited power to the Fed govt, and leaving the rest to the states and the people. Even a century of trying by the leftists, to bribe people into giving the govt far more power, hasn't changed them much. Every time they go overboard, a backlash from the people boots out huge numbers of them, as happened in 1994, 2010, and will happen again in 2014.
I am no going to type the whole book of the Federalist Papers, it's filled with it.
All laws, whether prescriptive or prohibitive, legislate morality. All laws, regardless of their content or their intent, arise from a system of values, from a belief that some things are right and others wrong, that some things are good and others bad, that some things are better and others worse. In the formulation and enforcement of law, the question is never whether or not morality will be legislated, but which one.
I will show you moral law though and the protection of life.
When we pass laws that require drivers to drive their vehicles at 20 mph or less in school zones, we do so because we have a value system that rightly puts greater worth in human life, than in vehicular speed. That valuation is a moral judgment. That moral valuation we properly and wisely seek to translate into binding and enforceable law. We propose and pass such laws because we think it wrong for drivers recklessly to endanger the lives of defenseless children, who lack the experience, foresight, and physical dexterity to keep themselves out of harms way on the streets. We punish drivers who do not do as the law requires. No one, in the face of such proposed legislation, says to the local authorities that those authorities have no right to impose their morality on others, even though that is precisely what such laws do.
Me too. But it's telling that things are so far gone that so many of us took it seriously, and so many still are.
AS a matter of course? The Declaration was codified into LAW with the adoption of the Constitution.
Painted Turd knows NOT of what he/she/IT speaks.
Boy, that would send the knuckle-draggers over the edge if they lose Scalia on this month's decision that will spell the end of the world as we know it.
I will watch and see what you post if Justice Roberts sides with Hobby Lobby.
Someone fell for the National Report again.
She, Roberts, and Kennedy are taking the time to prepare a majority to enshrine marriage equality. They have five votes and are reaching out now for two more.
Separate names with a comma.