Rule of Law, or Rule of Man?

[sparky]

Maybe because they were white aristo's looking to get a leg up on England under the guise of patriotism?

you tell us TM

~S~

 

[Truthmatters]

Read the documents.

Its pretty fucking clear.

They intended a document that could GROW with societies needs.


Why do you people keep spewing hagte on the founders intent for poltical purposes and think no one sees through your crap.

 

[Truthmatters]

Tell me what the founders had to say about the amendment process they designed?

 

[sparky]

The FF's weren't consulting Nostradamus TM

they had no idea of America in the present world, nor the evolution it took to this day

they operated under what was mostly enlightend self interest(s)

that we are a nation of men, not laws remains the argument of constitutional fundamentalists evoking bibical quotes , and similar boulderdash....~S~

 

[editec]

Our Flounding Fathers believed that that this Republic ought to be run by the rule of SOME MEN (and not all that many) who write the laws.


And then and ONLY then will they concede that the rule of law was the key.

Not true. How do you figure that? They founded this country on Rule of Law, not men.

To which men did they give authority to design the law?

To a rather select group of them.

And what is the number one premise of their laws?

This nation is based on the principle of property rights being protected under the law.

That's a very good system especially for those with property to protect.

 

[Truthmatters]

Article Five of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

yes they had no idea and they also wanted those people to be free to choose their government processes.


They loved freedom so much they cared aobut the freedom of people they could never know about.......us.


Now tell me why you are hating on them for allowing us to own our own government?

 

[Truthmatters]

Article Five of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


They PUT this into the constitution.


Why does the right only like what they want in the constitution and HATE everything they dont like?

Because they dont really like the constitution

 

[Truthmatters]

Now this thread will die.

Later some right wing fool will repete the same stupid lies they hear from the likes of Rush and Rove.

 

[Truthmatters]

Talk facts and they dissapear

 

[WorldWatcher]

Our founding fathers designed this Republic to be run on the Rule of Law, not the Rule of Man. In fact the founding fathers detested the label Democrat, and the whole idea of Democracy. Simply going by whatever a majority of the voters wanted was a bad idea in their eyes. Think about two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. THAT is the Rule of Man.

Our country is and should be a country based on the Rule of Law. This brings me to Proposition 8.

The people voted essentially to ban Gay Marriage (Rule of Man), the judge, in a rare moment of sanity from this guy, shot it down because of the Rule of Law.

I hear this kind of thing from both the left and the right. "The people want this, and the people want that!" That isn't how this country was founded

I have a whole lot of issues with the whole Gay Marriage debate, and probably that's for another thread, and I don't like the way each side is acting on this issue, but I ALWAYS revert to the founding fathers on issues and even if I don't like the result, their logic is sopund and has worked for almost 250 years.

Well, no.

If the FOunding Fathers wanted to put a right to homosexual marriage in the constitution, they would have written one in there. They didn't.

I disagree with the concept that the Constitution is a document that must enumerate rights for them to be held by the people.

As a matter of fact they specifically said in the Constitution that position and while there is no right to Same-sex Civil Marriage in the Constitution, it does enumerate the right to equal treatment under the law.

Even the 9th Circus backed off Judge Walker's conclusion that there was a "consitutional right" to gay marriage and did some handstands to strike down Prop 8 anyway.

Now, I thought Prop 8 was bad law, and I'm happy to see it overturned for no other reason than it will REALLY piss off the Mormons. (Who spent their kids' college funds to support it.)

I agree they shied away from the core issue that many Same-sex Civil Marriage supporters hoped they would address. However the concept that once a right is granted (under State law) that there must be a compelling government interest in then banning such a right instead of enacting an invidious law simply because "we say so" is sound. And face it none of the reasons put forth by proponents hold water.

But the people of California voted- twice- to define marriage as one man and one woman. Along come activist judges who decide, ah, screw it, it would be legal if I were writing the law. That's judicial activism, and it's wrong if it comes from the left or the right.

The people of California did vote twice true. But the term "activist judges" really means any judge that rules in a manner in which I disagree (and sometimes that applies to me as well).

Judges overturns a law based on 14th Amendments Equal Protection Clause = Activist Judge

Judge overturns a ban on guns based on 2nd Amendment = Constitution Supporting Judge​

The fact remains that no law is ruled as ultimately unconstitutional at a national level without close examination at multiple levels within the judicial system resulting in a final ruling by the SCOTUS. The fact that the populace at large typically ignores the actually application of law and simply advocates for their own position often fuels the cry of "activist judge".


*********************************************

Disclaimer:

Just to be clear, I support Same-sex Civil Marriage because I believe in smaller less intrusive government and under the principle of Equal Protection of the laws I have never been presented with a valid compelling government reason why law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, consenting, adults in a same-sex relationship should be treated differently under the law than law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, consenting, adults in a different-sex relationship. Most of the issues that are a real problem with Same-sex Civil Marriage are actually the concept of "Public Accommodation" laws which exist with or without any Civil Marriage recognition and for a number of years I've advocated for the repeal of these Public Accommodation laws which originally were well intended, but which have grown into an encroachment of big government into private business.

I also think that the Prop 8 suit was a bad move when thinking Strategically v. Tactically. Tactically the challenge may have made sense, however winning the suit (even just winning at the 9th while we wait for SCOTUS) could have long term negative effects toward removing gender discrimination from the law. I think, strategically speaking, it would have been better to honor the ruling with grace and to then have begun working to change the hearts and minds of those that resulted in the very narrow percentage needed for victory. Then take it back to the ballot. Sort of like what has happened/is happening in Maine this year.

The first victory at the ballot box would bring a lot more support then will a victory in the courts.



>>>>

 

[PredFan]

Our founding fathers designed this Republic to be run on the Rule of Law, not the Rule of Man. In fact the founding fathers detested the label Democrat, and the whole idea of Democracy. Simply going by whatever a majority of the voters wanted was a bad idea in their eyes. Think about two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. THAT is the Rule of Man.

Our country is and should be a country based on the Rule of Law. This brings me to Proposition 8.

The people voted essentially to ban Gay Marriage (Rule of Man), the judge, in a rare moment of sanity from this guy, shot it down because of the Rule of Law.

I hear this kind of thing from both the left and the right. "The people want this, and the people want that!" That isn't how this country was founded

I have a whole lot of issues with the whole Gay Marriage debate, and probably that's for another thread, and I don't like the way each side is acting on this issue, but I ALWAYS revert to the founding fathers on issues and even if I don't like the result, their logic is sopund and has worked for almost 250 years.

Well, no.

If the FOunding Fathers wanted to put a right to homosexual marriage in the constitution, they would have written one in there. They didn't. Even the 9th Circus backed off Judge Walker's conclusion that there was a "consitutional right" to gay marriage and did some handstands to strike down Prop 8 anyway.

The founding Fathers created a document which created a country that was based on the Rule of Law. This rule was meant to stand the test of time. They knew that in the future that there would be things that would come before the courts that dealt with rights, liberty, and freedom. That is why we must default to the Rule of Law over the Rule of Man. Voting away liberty, and the people of California did, is against what the Founding fathers intended. they don't have to actually name the name of the issue, it remains an issue of Law.

Now, I thought Prop 8 was bad law, and I'm happy to see it overturned for no other reason than it will REALLY piss off the Mormons. (Who spent their kids' college funds to support it.)

But the people of California voted- twice- to define marriage as one man and one woman. Along come activist judges who decide, ah, screw it, it would be legal if I were writing the law. That's judicial activism, and it's wrong if it comes from the left or the right.

This country was NEVER designed to allow a majority of the population to vote away the liberties of a minority. That is a solid fact.

 

[Truthmatters]

It was designed to provide freedom for the people.

Someone marrying who they choose to marry is freedom

 

[PredFan]

The founders dont live any more.

The founders also left us a system in which we could make our government our own and its called the amendment system.

They WANTED us to be able to grow our country with our needs.

Why do you hate that part of the system the FOUNDERS designed for us?

The Founding Fathers created the government that lead to the greatest country that ever existed. It's funny how you idiotic lefties love it or hate it depending on how it suits your partisan looney policies.

 

[PredFan]

Our Flounding Fathers believed that that this Republic ought to be run by the rule of SOME MEN (and not all that many) who write the laws.


And then and ONLY then will they concede that the rule of law was the key.

Not true. How do you figure that? They founded this country on Rule of Law, not men.

most of them were slave owners

~S~

ZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...............

 

[PredFan]

Why does the right constantly LIE about the founders intents?

Where's the lie? Prove it or take your lying ass somewhere else.

 

[PredFan]

Talk facts and they dissapear

You wouldn't know a fact if it was shoved up your ass.

 

[Truthmatters]

Our founding fathers designed this Republic to be run on the Rule of Law, not the Rule of Man. In fact the founding fathers detested the label Democrat, and the whole idea of Democracy. Simply going by whatever a majority of the voters wanted was a bad idea in their eyes. Think about two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. THAT is the Rule of Man.

Our country is and should be a country based on the Rule of Law. This brings me to Proposition 8.

The people voted essentially to ban Gay Marriage (Rule of Man), the judge, in a rare moment of sanity from this guy, shot it down because of the Rule of Law.

I hear this kind of thing from both the left and the right. "The people want this, and the people want that!" That isn't how this country was founded

I have a whole lot of issues with the whole Gay Marriage debate, and probably that's for another thread, and I don't like the way each side is acting on this issue, but I ALWAYS revert to the founding fathers on issues and even if I don't like the result, their logic is sopund and has worked for almost 250 years.

The founders did NOT hate democracy

 

[WorldWatcher]

The Founding Fathers created the government that lead to the greatest country that ever existed. It's funny how you idiotic lefties love it or hate it depending on how it suits your partisan looney policies.

In my mind as you've framed the discussion, the Rule of Law is kind of like Free Speech.

The results/action may not be very popular with everyone, but if you don't believe in the fundamental concept should be applied to those you disagree with - beware - the protections might not be there when you need them.


>>>>

 

[Truthmatters]

The right is severly confused about what the founders intended.

They talked about direct democracy being bad for the people.

Direct or pure democracy is when there are no reps and the people vote on EVERYTHING!.

That is one kind of democracy.

A republic in another type of Democracy.

Yes the founders LOVED Democracy.

They did not love direct or pure democracy which makes sense becasue its a mess if the people have to vote on EVERYTHING.

this explains it

 

[Seawytch]

The founders dont live any more.

The founders also left us a system in which we could make our government our own and its called the amendment system.

They WANTED us to be able to grow our country with our needs.

Why do you hate that part of the system the FOUNDERS designed for us?

The Founding Fathers created the government that lead to the greatest country that ever existed. It's funny how you idiotic lefties love it or hate it depending on how it suits your partisan looney policies.

Can you argue with what she said? They did design a system that would change with the changing needs of society. They were slave owners that put in place a system that could overturn slavery and other forms of discrimination. That's wicked smawt.