A Peek At The Future?

[NoNukes]

Even those of us who work in a sewer understand that

We also understand the difference between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution

Shows the value of a Columbia University education doesn't it?

I was accepted at Columbia for graduate school and turned them down.

If you are wondering what to get Political Chic for Chrustmas, scissors and paste are always appropriate.

Advice: set the controls and steer for the center of the sun

I set the controls for the heart of the sun years ago and never looked back.

 

[NoNukes]

Even those of us who work in a sewer understand that

We also understand the difference between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution

Shows the value of a Columbia University education doesn't it?

I was accepted at Columbia for graduate school and turned them down.

If you are wondering what to get Political Chic for Chrustmas, scissors and paste are always appropriate.

"I was accepted at Columbia for graduate school and turned them down."

Tell the whole story!

It was to be studied in the psych department....and they settled for the Elephant Man.

You mean that you thought that I was the one you had sex with? No, I was nowhere near Columbia.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I was accepted at Columbia for graduate school and turned them down.

If you are wondering what to get Political Chic for Chrustmas, scissors and paste are always appropriate.

"I was accepted at Columbia for graduate school and turned them down."

Tell the whole story!

It was to be studied in the psych department....and they settled for the Elephant Man.

You mean that you thought that I was the one you had sex with? No, I was nowhere near Columbia.

So.....you're gonna sink to variation #17 of 'yes you are but what am I?'

Lame.

 

[rightwinger]

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.


See if you can figure out why it is called the Bill of Rights.


Nor am I surprised that Georgie is having the same problem with the concept.
So....you guys studied in the same sewer?

Even those of us who work in a sewer understand that

We also understand the difference between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution

Shows the value of a Columbia University education doesn't it?

I was accepted at Columbia for graduate school and turned them down.

If you are wondering what to get Political Chic for Chrustmas, scissors and paste are always appropriate.

Columbia gives Masters Degrees in Cut and Paste

Evidently, they also offer Constitution For Dummies

 

[PoliticalChic]

Even those of us who work in a sewer understand that

We also understand the difference between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution

Shows the value of a Columbia University education doesn't it?

I was accepted at Columbia for graduate school and turned them down.

If you are wondering what to get Political Chic for Chrustmas, scissors and paste are always appropriate.

Columbia gives Masters Degrees in Cut and Paste

Evidently, they also offer Constitution For Dummies

Criticism of 'cut and paste' is a ritualized critique, used by those too inept to actually attempt to breach the ideas themselves.....not to be mistaken for real rebuttal.
Intellectual contention is drowned out in a sea of repetition and fear.


You've been thoroughly schooled in this thread....but if it makes you feel that you are saving face...I'll allow you to continue to hide behind 'cut and paste.'

 

[rightwinger]

I was accepted at Columbia for graduate school and turned them down.

If you are wondering what to get Political Chic for Chrustmas, scissors and paste are always appropriate.

Columbia gives Masters Degrees in Cut and Paste

Evidently, they also offer Constitution For Dummies

Criticism of 'cut and paste' is a ritualized critique, used by those too inept to actually attempt to breach the ideas themselves.....not to be mistaken for real rebuttal.
Intellectual contention is drowned out in a sea of repetition and fear.


You've been thoroughly schooled in this thread....but if it makes you feel that you are saving face...I'll allow you to continue to hide behind 'cut and paste.'

Actually, criticism of cut and paste is appropriate for those incapable of anything else

As it is for those unable to distinguish the Constitution from the Declaration of Independence.

 

[MikeK]

Elena Kagan would happily include America in the list of nations where it is a crime to contest the "official" version of the so-called Holocaust. In fact, many EU nations already ban denials of the Holocaust, including Germany, France, Spain, Austria and Belgium. One may be sentenced to prison for voicing doubts about this event in history.

EU approves criminal measures against Holocaust denial - Israel News | Haaretz Daily Newspaper

But regardless of how one feels about the Nazi pogrom against the Jews, the occurrence and cruelties of which are a matter of historical record, it is nothing short of tyrannical political oppression to criminalize and imprison someone for criticizing the record or denying any of its contents truly occurred.

The final determination in any controversy must be left to intelligently evaluated debate, not the force of law and the threat of punishment. So to appoint someone like Kagan to The Court would be a serious and potentially regrettable mistake.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Columbia gives Masters Degrees in Cut and Paste

Evidently, they also offer Constitution For Dummies

Criticism of 'cut and paste' is a ritualized critique, used by those too inept to actually attempt to breach the ideas themselves.....not to be mistaken for real rebuttal.
Intellectual contention is drowned out in a sea of repetition and fear.


You've been thoroughly schooled in this thread....but if it makes you feel that you are saving face...I'll allow you to continue to hide behind 'cut and paste.'

Actually, criticism of cut and paste is appropriate for those incapable of anything else

As it is for those unable to distinguish the Constitution from the Declaration of Independence.

"Actually, criticism of cut and paste is appropriate for those incapable of anything else"


Really poorly syntactical sentence structure....

....but, the way it reads, I agree: you are incapable of anything else.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Elena Kagan would happily include America in the list of nations where it is a crime to contest the "official" version of the so-called Holocaust. In fact, many EU nations already ban denials of the Holocaust, including Germany, France, Spain, Austria and Belgium. One may be sentenced to prison for voicing doubts about this event in history.

EU approves criminal measures against Holocaust denial - Israel News | Haaretz Daily Newspaper

But regardless of how one feels about the Nazi pogrom against the Jews, the occurrence and cruelties of which are a matter of historical record, it is nothing short of tyrannical political oppression to criminalize and imprison someone for criticizing the record or denying any of its contents truly occurred.

The final determination in any controversy must be left to intelligently evaluated debate, not the force of law and the threat of punishment. So to appoint someone like Kagan to The Court would be a serious and potentially regrettable mistake.

"So to appoint someone like Kagan to The Court would be a serious and potentially regrettable mistake."

Mikey....from the above, it appears you are unaware that Obama did just that.



"Elena Kagan was confirmed to a seat on the Supreme Court Thursday. The Senate voted 63-37, mostly along party lines, to make Kagan America's 112th Supreme Court justice."
Elena Kagan confirmed to Supreme Court - CSMonitor.com


Sad, but true.



Did you know that Obama was actually re-elected?


Even sadder.

 

[there4eyeM]

The constitution expressed something that was believed to be true in the best manner it could be expressed in 18th English.
The way language works is that humans have concepts and thoughts and give them names. They exist in the minds of those humans. 'Right' is one of those words.

1. Unalienable Rights are defined as: [Rights which are] incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred.
According to Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition.




2. The Founders supported the idea that human rights, or Natural Rights, where inherent to all people and could not be transferred, even by those having the rights. Most importantly – these rights where not created by governments – but rather, where acknowledged to already pre-exist and supersede government. Therefore – claiming these rights are unalienable – a government cannot later claim that a people have spoken or chosen to given up their rights. The only way possible to forfeit an unalienable right – is as a just penalty for violating another person’s unalienable rights.
http://appeal2heaven.com/2009/04/29/inalienable-vs-unalienable-rights/




Only socialist, collectivist, totalitarian regimes, believe that rights can be withdrawn at the whim of a government.

...as do you.

Wrong.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The constitution expressed something that was believed to be true in the best manner it could be expressed in 18th English.
The way language works is that humans have concepts and thoughts and give them names. They exist in the minds of those humans. 'Right' is one of those words.

1. Unalienable Rights are defined as: [Rights which are] incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred.
According to Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition.




2. The Founders supported the idea that human rights, or Natural Rights, where inherent to all people and could not be transferred, even by those having the rights. Most importantly – these rights where not created by governments – but rather, where acknowledged to already pre-exist and supersede government. Therefore – claiming these rights are unalienable – a government cannot later claim that a people have spoken or chosen to given up their rights. The only way possible to forfeit an unalienable right – is as a just penalty for violating another person’s unalienable rights.
http://appeal2heaven.com/2009/04/29/inalienable-vs-unalienable-rights/




Only socialist, collectivist, totalitarian regimes, believe that rights can be withdrawn at the whim of a government.

...as do you.

Wrong.

Right.

 

[there4eyeM]

Far right, and wrong.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Far right, and wrong.

You have things so backwards one almost has to be dyslexic to understand you.



Your misguided view can only be from one who failed to study American history....
...this nation was founded based on the view to which I subscribe, and paid for with the blood of patriots.

Now, along come folks who don't understand the giant leap forward in social evolution that was, and are proud and ready to turn your future back to you "betters," who will decide whether or not you have rights.

Folks like me don't have "betters."

Tomorrow morn I'll write an OP based on your lack of erudition in this area.

 

[there4eyeM]

Some 'folks' understand how language and ideas function.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Are we moving toward a nation without the unalienable rights memorialized in the Constitution?

No, the notion is ignorant idiocy.

In fact, the opening sentence makes no sense whatsoever.

The Constitution is a legal document, the DOI political, and carries no force of law.

As for ‘unalienable rights,’ in essence they are codified by the 14th Amendment, which incorporates the Bill of Rights to the states. Prior to the advent of incorporation doctrine, the Bill of Rights applied only to the Federal government. At that time our civil liberties were indeed not ‘unalienable,’ as the states could ignore the first Ten Amendments to the Constitution, such as the 6th Amendment right to counsel.

By the end of the 19th Century, however, the Supreme Court began to apply the Bill of Rights to the states as originally intended. See: Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad v. City of Chicago (1897) and Gitlow v. New York (1925).

Today, with but a few exemptions, the bulk of the provisions of the first Ten Amendments to the Constitution have been incorporated to the states, where the states can no longer violate the civil liberties of their residents. Consequently, the rights codified by the Bill of Rights are now unalienable.

The political irony of this, of course, is that conservatives, for the most part, have always opposed incorporation doctrine, advocating the myth of ‘states’ rights.’ Obviously in the context of ‘states’ rights’ a state could deny its residents a given civil liberty, again, such as the right to counsel. See: Gideon v. Wainwright (1963). If a citizen is denied his right to counsel, as was the case in Florida, then one’s rights are clearly not unalienable.

Where conservatives currently stand on incorporation doctrine is unclear, after Justice Scalia accepted the doctrine (grudgingly) in McDonald:

…I have acquiesced in the Court’s incorporation of certain guarantees in the Bill of Rights “because it is both long established and narrowly limited.” Albright v. Oliver , 510 U. S. 266, 275 (1994) ( Scalia, J., concurring). This case does not require me to reconsider that view, since straightforward application of settled doctrine suffices to decide it.

Mv. CHICAGO

Likely there are some reactionary conservative and libertarian holdouts still opposed to incorporation doctrine, but with the likes of Justice Scalia endorsing the doctrine, what legal recourse such conservatives and libertarians have is severely limited, if not non-existent.

 

[midcan5]

"Conservatives thrive on a world filled with mysterious evil and unfathomable hatreds, where good is always on the defensive and time is a precious commodity in the cosmic race against corruption and decline." Corey Robin 'The Reactionary Mind'

I wonder sometimes if the conservative mind is a given. It sees always a slippery slope into some unholy miasma. And it has always been this way. The predictions of perdition and loss are forgotten as the next predictions of loss gain currency. We are always losing something and we are always losing something else. It must be a bad place to have a mind that sees these losses over and over again. But when they name a foe all is well for it then becomes explainable. Political psychopathy, a new entry in the DSM.

"Though it is often claimed that the left stands for equality while the right stand for freedom, the notion misstates the actual disagreement between right and left. Historically, the conservative has favored liberty for the higher orders and constraint for the lower orders. What the conservatives sees and dislikes in equality, in other words, is not a threat to freedom but its extension." Corey Robin

 

[PoliticalChic]

Are we moving toward a nation without the unalienable rights memorialized in the Constitution?

No, the notion is ignorant idiocy.

In fact, the opening sentence makes no sense whatsoever.

The Constitution is a legal document, the DOI political, and carries no force of law.

As for ‘unalienable rights,’ in essence they are codified by the 14th Amendment, which incorporates the Bill of Rights to the states. Prior to the advent of incorporation doctrine, the Bill of Rights applied only to the Federal government. At that time our civil liberties were indeed not ‘unalienable,’ as the states could ignore the first Ten Amendments to the Constitution, such as the 6th Amendment right to counsel.

By the end of the 19th Century, however, the Supreme Court began to apply the Bill of Rights to the states as originally intended. See: Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad v. City of Chicago (1897) and Gitlow v. New York (1925).

Today, with but a few exemptions, the bulk of the provisions of the first Ten Amendments to the Constitution have been incorporated to the states, where the states can no longer violate the civil liberties of their residents. Consequently, the rights codified by the Bill of Rights are now unalienable.

The political irony of this, of course, is that conservatives, for the most part, have always opposed incorporation doctrine, advocating the myth of ‘states’ rights.’ Obviously in the context of ‘states’ rights’ a state could deny its residents a given civil liberty, again, such as the right to counsel. See: Gideon v. Wainwright (1963). If a citizen is denied his right to counsel, as was the case in Florida, then one’s rights are clearly not unalienable.

Where conservatives currently stand on incorporation doctrine is unclear, after Justice Scalia accepted the doctrine (grudgingly) in McDonald:

…I have acquiesced in the Court’s incorporation of certain guarantees in the Bill of Rights “because it is both long established and narrowly limited.” Albright v. Oliver , 510 U. S. 266, 275 (1994) ( Scalia, J., concurring). This case does not require me to reconsider that view, since straightforward application of settled doctrine suffices to decide it.

Mv. CHICAGO

Likely there are some reactionary conservative and libertarian holdouts still opposed to incorporation doctrine, but with the likes of Justice Scalia endorsing the doctrine, what legal recourse such conservatives and libertarians have is severely limited, if not non-existent.

Well.....

....excellent rebuttal, C_Chamber_Pot!

That was the most articulate, astute response from any of the lawyer-folks!!!
Worlds better than the usual 'because I say so' post.

Rep on the way!


It was the kind of response I was hoping for when I attacked legal education!!
Yes, indeed!


Now....I don't agree....I still find it fraudulent to replace the words of the Constitution with judicial opiinion...
...and find it less than honorable for judges to pretend that the outcome that they see as preferable is "the rule of law...."
But....I appreciate the post.

And the amendment process is still the only legal way to change he Constitution!



(Psssttt....'course, we both know you fudged in not commenting on Kagan and Obama denying free speech as an unalienable right....don't we.)

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Conservatives thrive on a world filled with mysterious evil and unfathomable hatreds, where good is always on the defensive and time is a precious commodity in the cosmic race against corruption and decline." Corey Robin 'The Reactionary Mind'

I wonder sometimes if the conservative mind is a given. It sees always a slippery slope into some unholy miasma. And it has always been this way. The predictions of perdition and loss are forgotten as the next predictions of loss gain currency. We are always losing something and we are always losing something else. It must be a bad place to have a mind that sees these losses over and over again. But when they name a foe all is well for it then becomes explainable. Political psychopathy, a new entry in the DSM.

"Though it is often claimed that the left stands for equality while the right stand for freedom, the notion misstates the actual disagreement between right and left. Historically, the conservative has favored liberty for the higher orders and constraint for the lower orders. What the conservatives sees and dislikes in equality, in other words, is not a threat to freedom but its extension." Corey Robin

"Conservatives thrive on a world filled with mysterious evil...."


Your post is filled with more smoke and mirrors than a fire in a brothel.


Where is your discussion of the 'mysterious evil' of Obama's and Kagan's believe that the government can take away freedom of speech?
Kind of a glaring omission, huh?



What a good little totalitarian you are.
Left-right, left-right.....

 

[PoliticalChic]

Some 'folks' understand how language and ideas function.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/education/269573-pledge-allegiance-to-whom.html