Time to rein in the courts

[ScreamingEagle]

I am just tuned into reality. The mass can be stirred up by the smallest thing. Did you see the riots in Boston last night? Cooler heads need to prevail.

Answer me this: Why didn't the founding fathers put the fate of this country up to a vote? Why?

You believe that what the people want is that which is right. That is not always the case. We had to strongarm the people to give up slavery, integrate schools and not discriminate based on race. There are many times when the will of the people will be contrary to what the Constitution dictates. At those moments, I don't want a judge to have to listen to us. I want him to be able to sit in a quiet room and think through the situation without a crying mother in his ear. The law has no place for passion.

Pathetic and Un-American? How so? I believe that America stands for majority rule while protecting minority rights. If we do as you want and only let the mob rule, who is going to protect the minority rights? That is the place for judges. And the Un-American insult is shallow. That is tossed around so much. What is it to be an American? I bet your answer differs from mine but who are you to say yours is right? That, my friend, is elitism. You do not have a monopoly on being American.

You assume the mob should always be relied on and that I think the mob should never be relied on. Both of those assumptions are wrong. The people are relied upon most of the time (electing legistlators and executives) but in order to protect the minority there needs to be times when we are insulated from the will of the masses.

And when did I say we were incapable of having elections without the U.N.? I said they would help point out our mistakes in order that we might fix them.

And what do you mean monarchy? You obviously see no middle ground, as is worth repeating. It is not: either people decide or people don't decide. There is a mix and that is what we have.

So many accusations, so little proof...how does what I'm saying give away freedoms? And with respect to defending our country, every member of society that does so has my respect. But serving your country does not mean that you know everything about how a government works and how it should work. You are mixing the relations between the people and their effect.

You call it being cynical, I call it being realistic and not sugar-coating the situation. I take the situation as it is and try to figure out how to make it work within a framework. You apparently want to assume the best and ignore the bad parts of humanity. That will lead to disaster.

And I'd like a list of the so-called "non-sensical" posts I have made in the past.

Huh? I can't tell if you are inadvertently showing a hidden fascist face or if you just don't understand how our American system works. Believe it or not, there are MANY minorities in this country which do NOT have rights, will NEVER have rights, and should not have rights, despite their caterwauling. This is determined by the Legislative Branch of the government (not mob rule and not the courts) unless the judges should find in a law that individual rights AS WRITTEN in the Constitution to be breached, thus invalidating the law. If the Constitution needs to be changed, the people will change it through legislative procedures, as they did with racial discrimination -see Amendment XV for an example. Amendments are LEGISLATED by the PEOPLE.

Amendment XV (1870)
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

 

[MJDuncan1982]

Huh? I can't tell if you are inadvertently showing a hidden fascist face or if you just don't understand how our American system works. Believe it or not, there are MANY minorities in this country which do NOT have rights, will NEVER have rights, and should not have rights, despite their caterwauling. This is determined by the Legislative Branch of the government (not mob rule and not the courts) unless the judges should find in a law that individual rights AS WRITTEN in the Constitution to be breached, thus invalidating the law. If the Constitution needs to be changed, the people will change it through legislative procedures, as they did with racial discrimination -see Amendment XV for an example. Amendments are LEGISLATED by the PEOPLE.

Amendment XV (1870)
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

I answered each one of your points. Now you have called me fascist as well as un-american. An intelligent debate is not progessing. Please respond to the many issues I posted in response to your questions.

As to not knowing how the system works - It is majority rule protecting minority rights. We let democracy run its course until it infringes on the rights of another. The liberty of one ends where the liberty of another begins. And what minority does not have political rights? That's a new one to me

I was not referring to racial discrimination as to the right to vote. Brown v. Board (overruling separate but equal) was decided by the courts. It eliminated the discrimination relating to separate water fountains, etc. That same case also eliminated segregation. Slavery was a matter solved by the legislative branch, I mistakenly attributed it to the courts.

Finally, there were several baseless accusations made towards me, such as that I think we are incapable of holding elections without U.N. help; that I want to live in a monarchy due to these opinions; that these opinions "give away freedoms". A respectable individual does not issue such claims without support and then not defend them.

Support what you claim.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I answered each one of your points. Now you have called me fascist as well as un-american. An intelligent debate is not progessing. Please respond to the many issues I posted in response to your questions.

I did not call you a fascist and will not do so until I'm sure. (You'll have to see Merlin about being un-American.) But that is how fascism works when the courts become the creators of law and not the interpreters of law. A few control the many. I hope you can understand the difference and don't support it.

As to not knowing how the system works - It is majority rule protecting minority rights. We let democracy run its course until it infringes on the rights of another. The liberty of one ends where the liberty of another begins. And what minority does not have political rights? That's a new one to me.

I can think of several sexual minorities such as pederasts, gays, and polygamists. Although they do have political rights in the general sense, they are clamoring for "fuller" rights in our society. The liberals are starting to create all kinds of new minorities. A minority is a group that is outnumbered by persons who do not belong to it. This can be used to refer to people of a different language, nationality, religion, culture, lifestyle or any characteristic. Use your imagination.

I was not referring to racial discrimination as to the right to vote. Brown v. Board (overruling separate but equal) was decided by the courts. It eliminated the discrimination relating to separate water fountains, etc. That same case also eliminated segregation. Slavery was a matter solved by the legislative branch, I mistakenly attributed it to the courts.

Well, none of us are experts. The point of this thread is that liberal judges are making decisions that create basically new law based upon a flimsy legal foundation; they are not interpreting existing law already on the books.

Finally, there were several baseless accusations made towards me, such as that I think we are incapable of holding elections without U.N. help; that I want to live in a monarchy due to these opinions; that these opinions "give away freedoms". A respectable individual does not issue such claims without support and then not defend them.

Support what you claim.

Not my claims.

 

[MJDuncan1982]

I did not call you a fascist and will not do so until I'm sure. (You'll have to see Merlin about being un-American.) But that is how fascism works when the courts become the creators of law and not the interpreters of law. A few control the many. I hope you can understand the difference and don't support it.




I can think of several sexual minorities such as pederasts, gays, and polygamists. Although they do have political rights in the general sense, they are clamoring for "fuller" rights in our society. The liberals are starting to create all kinds of new minorities. A minority is a group that is outnumbered by persons who do not belong to it. This can be used to refer to people of a different language, nationality, religion, culture, lifestyle or any characteristic. Use your imagination.



Well, none of us are experts. The point of this thread is that liberal judges are making decisions that create basically new law based upon a flimsy legal foundation; they are not interpreting existing law already on the books.



Not my claims.

My apologies. I accidently combined you and Merlin into one. Did not realize I was talking with two people.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

My apologies. I accidently combined you and Merlin into one. Did not realize I was talking with two people.

Thanks for the compliment.

 

[Merlin1047]

Finally, there were several baseless accusations made towards me, such as that I think we are incapable of holding elections without U.N. help; that I want to live in a monarchy due to these opinions; that these opinions "give away freedoms". A respectable individual does not issue such claims without support and then not defend them.

Support what you claim.

I gets a bit tiresome discussing a point with you. You demand "proof" of facts which have been common knowledge and reported upon for years. Then you discount these as irrelevant or simply ignore them.

Now you're apparently unable to recall your own statements. Okay, I'll help you in that regard, but then I'm done. Here are your own words regarding sending in the UN to make sure we conduct our elections properly:
======================================================

"Just because we are America doesn't mean we are invinsible against fraud.
It seems to me that the country that thinks it's elections are perfect and doesn't need to watch them is the country most prone to tamper. It often times takes an outside opinion to recognize one's faults.

Barring an exercise that could help the nature of our democracy is absolutely ridiculous and contrary to what I believe in as an American!"
=====================================================

"Secondly, you guys really think that with an electorate that is split 47-47 we can find enough people in each district who are impartial!!?? That is a pipe-dream. And you also assume that the foreigners will want to, and be able to, manipulate the election. I'm sure there are enough people around the world committed to the ideals of democracy to watch after our elections and be fair. The world is a big place."
======================================================

"If the global test is a test of a free, fair and stable democracy then what is wrong with it?"
======================================================

"I do not suggest handing over our election process to the UN. I am saying that we are a country with a backbone of wonderful principles and I will not bow down to lose them. Many people will not die for principles but man has accepted a few (give me liberty or give me death). I am for those principles and will give my life for them. We need to make sure we are faithful to them and I think some monitering can only be a good thing. We are not perfect and I would like someone to point out our flaws so they can be corrected."
=======================================================

"In a way I don't trust my own countrymen because politics is all about power and men desire power above all else. Look at all the bullshit that is tossed around just to win.

A disinterested (very hard to come by I admit) third party looking at our process would be a good thing to me.

Look at what went down in Florida. Both sides wanted to win and both sides did anything they could to win.

Do you think either side was really sitting back going: "let democracy and the will of the people play out and if we lose then we lose"?"
=======================================================

"I'm not an elitist by any means. That is a word that is tossed around as a general insult. I believe that when country "A" is having elections, the citizens of that country are inherently at a disadvantage to monitor. Countries "B" and "C" have an outside perspective which serves to keep things objective."
========================================================

That enough for you? If not, I can find more.

So go ahead and put your spin on how you don't want to hand our elections to the UN. That should be entertaining.

 

[MJDuncan1982]

Yet you have not explained why these statements are non-sensical.