Sean Hannity Is Abandoning Bush

The ClayTaurus said:
Yeah, but the slaves weren't Americans, and they weren't considered as Americans, so the constitution wouldn't apply to them.

Right. Hence, the three-fifths compromise, which I consider the opening shot of the Civil War. Slavery went against everything our founders (the anti-slavery majority of them, anyway) stood for. They had this little problem, though. That little problem was the world's reigning superpower, sailing over here just as fast as the wind could carry it, for the express purpose of grinding our founders' rebellious little testicles into axle grease. "There will be no slavery in our new nation" becomes a rather hollow statement if that nation ceases to exist. The war to abolish slavery commenced fewer than a hundred years later - the historical equivalent of the blink of an eye. Let's cut our founders a little slack, shall we?
 
musicman said:
Right. Hence, the three-fifths compromise, which I consider the opening shot of the Civil War. Slavery went against everything our founders (the anti-slavery majority of them, anyway) stood for. They had this little problem, though. That little problem was the world's reigning superpower, sailing over here just as fast as the wind could carry it, for the express purpose of grinding our founders' rebellious little testicles into axle grease. "There will be no slavery in our new nation" becomes a rather hollow statement if that nation ceases to exist. The war to abolish slavery commenced fewer than a hundred years later - the historical equivalent of the blink of an eye. Let's cut our founders a little slack, shall we?

No no, I wasn't giving any shit to the founding fathers. I was just seeing if the will of the people should always be followed or not.
 
The ClayTaurus said:
Yeah, but the slaves weren't Americans, and they weren't considered as Americans, so the constitution wouldn't apply to them.


slavery 101..all countries were guilty of this in past history...including the 'River Valley' known as Niger....this was the main exportation country of slavery in the 1500 thru 1700's...The 'Black' indigineous people of this country went on hunting expeditions to enslave 'their own' people to sell to the slave markets of the 'US and Europe'...and the actual slavery issue was not part of the 'Civil War' it was about unfair taxation...not a slave issue...when will people not learn from History 101 going back not only decades or centuries...but millenium...I for one am really sick and tired of this fictional interpretaion of history...!
 
Hagbard Celine said:
Amendment 14, section one, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The issues we have been talking about are all Constitutionally protected freedoms, so the states can't make laws abridging them. Check. You're right about judiciary making laws. It's not their job. But I never said it was. I said it was their job to determine the constitutionality of laws and strike them down or uphold them as they see fit.

No, you didn't - not exclusively. You also said it was their job to INTERPRET the law. And, using a deliberately twisted interpretation the XIVth Amendment as their weapon, they have bastardized the entire devolutionary design of constitutional government. The power of the people to run their everyday lives has been stolen.
 
musicman said:
No, you didn't - not exclusively. You also said it was their job to INTERPRET the law. And, using a deliberately twisted interpretation the XIVth Amendment as their weapon, they have bastardized the entire devolutionary design of constitutional government. The power of the people to run their everyday lives has been stolen.

Just have to say, Musicman, I just joined in July and didn't know you before, but if this is a typical post from you, I am very glad you are back. :dance:
 
The ClayTaurus said:
No no, I wasn't giving any shit to the founding fathers. I was just seeing if the will of the people should always be followed or not.

Right, Clay - I gotcha. My answer is - within the parameters of our Constitution - yes. Any other answer implies that government knows better than we what is "best" for us. This is precisely the kind of arrogance and tyranny our founders risked their lives and fortunes to combat.

Of course, if the people become so corrupt that their will spins them into abject immorality, the nation will collapse anyway. Happily, it is - so far - only the central government and their lawyers who have fallen THAT far.
 
musicman said:
No, you didn't - not exclusively. You also said it was their job to INTERPRET the law. And, using a deliberately twisted interpretation the XIVth Amendment as their weapon, they have bastardized the entire devolutionary design of constitutional government. The power of the people to run their everyday lives has been stolen.
Well, it IS their job to interpret the law. (edit) How can they decide constitutionality if they don't first interpret it??? What's your point? And what are you talking about "the power of the people to run their everyday lives has been stolen?" What decision by the supreme court has restricted your life in any way?
 
Originally Posted by Hagbard Celine
Amendment 14, section one, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The issues we have been talking about are all Constitutionally protected freedoms, so the states can't make laws abridging them. Check. You're right about judiciary making laws. It's not their job. But I never said it was. I said it was their job to determine the constitutionality of laws and strike them down or uphold them as they see fit.

If it's the job of the judiciary to "determine the constitutionality of laws" then why are various liberal judges on the Supreme Court looking to foreign laws to "strike down or uphold" laws that come before them? I always thought constitutionality meant regarding the U.S. Constitution.
 
Abbey Normal said:
Just have to say, Musicman, I just joined in July and didn't know you before, but if this is a typical post from you, I am very glad you are back. :dance:

Well, thanks so much, Abbey. And, may I say, the respect is very mutual. You are a great asset to what I consider an exhilarating board!
 
GotZoom said:
Do you think it should?
I mean, I guess. If the entire country wanted slavery and I didn't I guess I could always leave. It doesn't make much sense to force people to do something or be a way they don't want to do or be.
 
If it's the job of the judiciary to "determine the constitutionality of laws" then why are various liberal judges on the Supreme Court looking to foreign laws to "strike down or uphold" laws that come before them? I always thought constitutionality meant regarding the U.S. Constitution.
Are you going to give me an actual case to discuss or is this just a claim you're making?
 
The ClayTaurus said:
I mean, I guess. If the entire country wanted slavery and I didn't I guess I could always leave. It doesn't make much sense to force people to do something or be a way they don't want to do or be.

What about the majority?
 
What about the majority?
This argument is frivolous. It would never happen. And in terms of constitutionality, it wouldn't matter if the majority of people wanted it, because it would violate a certain population's civil and human rights (i.e. the slaves) so the Judiciary would rule it unconstitutional and it would be banned. Oh and not to mention that there is already an amendment, which bans slavery anyway.
 
Hagbard Celine said:
Well, it IS their job to interpret the law. (edit) How can they decide constitutionality if they don't first interpret it??? What's your point? And what are you talking about "the power of the people to run their everyday lives has been stolen?" What decision by the supreme court has restricted your life in any way?

There have been 40 million abortions in the U.S. since Roe vs. Wade.The nation I love is up to its eyeballs in innocent blood. My opinion counts for nothing, for we have a NATIONAL POLICY ON ABORTION. The founding fathers are spinning in their graves.
 
archangel said:
slavery 101..all countries were guilty of this in past history...including the 'River Valley' known as Niger....this was the main exportation country of slavery in the 1500 thru 1700's...The 'Black' indigineous people of this country went on hunting expeditions to enslave 'their own' people to sell to the slave markets of the 'US and Europe'...and the actual slavery issue was not part of the 'Civil War' it was about unfair taxation...not a slave issue...when will people not learn from History 101 going back not only decades or centuries...but millenium...I for one am really sick and tired of this fictional interpretation of history...!
 
There have been 40 million abortions in the U.S. since Roe vs. Wade.The nation I love is up to its eyeballs in innocent blood. My opinion counts for nothing, for we have a NATIONAL POLICY ON ABORTION. The founding fathers are spinning in their graves.
The people of the US, as a whole are "up to their eyeballs in innocent blood?" I don't know about you, but I've never had an abortion and I've never asked a girl of mine to get one. I thought you didn't believe in Socialism? So you're a rugged, individualist in all matters except abortion? Could you explain then what it is that puts us "all in it together" on the issue of abortion but then things like social security or welfare are individual, not societal problems?
 
archangel said:
archangel said:
slavery 101..all countries were guilty of this in past history...including the 'River Valley' known as Niger....this was the main exportation country of slavery in the 1500 thru 1700's...The 'Black' indigineous people of this country went on hunting expeditions to enslave 'their own' people to sell to the slave markets of the 'US and Europe'...and the actual slavery issue was not part of the 'Civil War' it was about unfair taxation...not a slave issue...when will people not learn from History 101 going back not only decades or centuries...but millenium...I for one am really sick and tired of this fictional interpretation of history...!

To say that slavery had "nothing to do with the Civil War" is a gross error. To say that it was about "unfair taxation" is wildly inaccurate - wrong war, bro.

The PRIMARY issue of the Civil War was states' rights.
 
Hagbard Celine said:
Are you going to give me an actual case to discuss or is this just a claim you're making?

Check out Lawrence vs. Texas. Now tell me, do you still think liberal judges are doing the right thing?

Writing for the majority in a landmark decision supporting gay civil rights, Justice Anthony Kennedy noted that the European Court of Human Rights and other foreign courts have affirmed the "rights of homosexual adults to engage in intimate, consensual conduct."

Never before had the Supreme Court's majority cited a foreign legal precedent in such a big case. Kennedy's opinion in Lawrence vs. Texas, which was signed by four other justices, has ignited a debate among analysts over whether it was a signal that the justices will adopt foreign courts' views of individual liberties.

In theory, that could mean the conservative court someday might be influenced by other countries' opposition to the death penalty, their emphasis on foreign prisoners' rights and even their acceptance of same-sex marriages. (Last month, a court in Canada lifted a ban on such unions.)

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-07-07-foreign-usat_x.htm
 
GotZoom said:
What about the majority?
Depends on your definition of a majority. I think ruling one way or another because 51% believe something and 49% believe the opposite isn't always the best way to go. That's not to say that it's never the right way to go either. What constitutes an acceptable majority? Not sure. Hence my questions.
 

Forum List

Back
Top