PDA

View Full Version : Priest Walks Into A Diner.............



Dagny
04-08-2012, 04:10 AM
.............in Kentucky. He's carrying a copy of the Constitution, and a Rand Paul bumpersticker.

He begins to have sex with a 13 year old boy.

A Libertarian walks up to him, and tries to stop him from committing this act.

Priest hands the Libertarian the Constitution, and asks to be shown the section that prohibits his actions.

While the befuddled Libertarian scours the document, the priest asks the waitress for some butter.


What section of the Constitution gives the govt. the right to tell a priest who he can have sex with?

Especially, given that he's in a privately owned diner?

Dagny
04-08-2012, 04:13 AM
Discuss

Mainecoons
04-08-2012, 06:20 AM
Perhaps if you got more sleep you wouldn't post such nonsense? The Constitution is not the only body of law in the U.S. and allegedly what is required is that said body of laws not contravene said Constitution.

Are you a pedophile? Sure seems to be a major topic of interest for you.

:grin:

Dagny
04-08-2012, 06:25 AM
Perhaps if you got more sleep you wouldn't post such nonsense? The Constitution is not the only body of law in the U.S. and allegedly what is required is that said body of laws not contravene said Constitution.

Are you a pedophile? Sure seems to be a major topic of interest for you.

:grin:

You haven't answered the question. Where does the constitution give the govt. the right to tell a priest what he can, and cannot do in private?

We've had this discussion before, and perhaps the delusional Constitutionalists here have converted me

keyser soze
04-08-2012, 06:30 AM
Good Morning Dagny and Thanks for the laugh this shiny morning! :rofl:

Mainecoons
04-08-2012, 07:01 AM
I answered the question, you just are weak at reading this morning perhaps from lack of sleep. Go back and read my post again until you get it. Perhaps a visit to your local law library and looking at the shelves of books there with laws in them will help you understand that the Constitution is the framework, not all the details.

It sure iss a weird post and thread, wasn't it Keyser? :grin:

keyser soze
04-08-2012, 07:02 AM
I think it's purrrrfect!

Mainecoons
04-08-2012, 07:05 AM
Meow! :grin:

Dagny
04-08-2012, 07:05 AM
I answered the question, you just are weak at reading this morning perhaps from lack of sleep. Go back and read my post again until you get it. Perhaps a visit to your local law library and looking at the shelves of books there with laws in them will help you understand that the Constitution is the framework, not all the details.

It sure iss a weird post and thread, wasn't it Keyser? :grin:Actually, it's a goose/gander issue. Now kindly show me the constitutional right to tell a priest he cannot have sex with the boy? I thought the govt. has no right to create these laws?

If we remove the Rand Paul bumpersticker from the equation, does it change anything?

Mainecoons
04-08-2012, 07:08 AM
Actually, it is a guy who doesn't understand what the Constitution is and isn't. And it is a waste of time to try and explain something so basic to him. Go back to bed and get some sleep.

:grin:

Dagny
04-08-2012, 07:19 AM
Actually, it is a guy who doesn't understand what the Constitution is and isn't. And it is a waste of time to try and explain something so basic to him. Go back to bed and get some sleep.

:grin:
Listen...I understand this is an intricate issue. Just as civil rights laws are. If you aren't up to the task, I'm sure Chris can clear this issue up for us.

I don't claim to understand the intricacies espoused by the Constitution junkies. That's why I need this question answered.

Based on the discussions in other threads, there is no constitutional foundation for asking the priest to stop.

Dagny
04-08-2012, 07:20 AM
I have a feeling this might hinge on the bumper sticker, though

MMC
04-08-2012, 07:43 AM
First off the Constitution can't tell a priest who he can have sex with. So trying to get those to argue that the Constituion can is a bit redundant don't you think. Course this says nothing about State laws who can tell a Priest it is illegal to have sex with an underage minor. Even in a diner. Even in the Priests own home. then if the Priest who is caught in the act fails to submit. Then the Police can make a judgement as to any harm taking place with the victim, if they deem it necessary to use deadly force. Then right there they can blow that Priest's head clean off his shoulders.

Making him wish he never thought of using Blue Bonnet On It! :wink:

Peter1469
04-08-2012, 07:46 AM
.............in Kentucky. He's carrying a copy of the Constitution, and a Rand Paul bumpersticker.

He begins to have sex with a 13 year old boy.

A Libertarian walks up to him, and tries to stop him from committing this act.

Priest hands the Libertarian the Constitution, and asks to be shown the section that prohibits his actions.

While the befuddled Libertarian scours the document, the priest asks the waitress for some butter.


What section of the Constitution gives the govt. the right to tell a priest who he can have sex with?

Especially, given that he's in a privately owned diner?

When our Constitution was created, the States decided that they wanted a federal government with enough power to be effective, but not so much power as to destroy State sovereignty. So the States decided to give the federal government limited and enumerated powers (see US Constitution). And one of those limited and enumerated powers was not authority to tell people who to have sex with or who not to have sex with.

You sir, just fail to understand the single greatest gift that the US has given history- the concept of federalism....

Public school education?

Dagny
04-08-2012, 09:39 AM
When our Constitution was created, the States decided that they wanted a federal government with enough power to be effective, but not so much power as to destroy State sovereignty. So the States decided to give the federal government limited and enumerated powers (see US Constitution). And one of those limited and enumerated powers was not authority to tell people who to have sex with or who not to have sex with.So why is there a federal penalty for pedophilia?


You sir, just fail to understand the single greatest gift that the US has given history- the concept of federalism....

Public school education?You sir, are hopelessly lost in fantasy land. Catholic School education? That would explain your obsession with putting YOUR morals, above everyone else's, and believing the law should be based on same.

Alias
04-08-2012, 09:42 AM
So why is there a federal penalty for pedophilia?

You sir, are hopelessly lost in fantasy land. Catholic School education? That would explain your obsession with putting YOUR morals, above everyone else's, and believing the law should be based on same.

Do you support abortion rights?

Dagny
04-08-2012, 09:46 AM
Do you support abortion rights?
Save for emergency reasons, I don't believe that someone should be able to abort a fetus once the brain/nerves are developed enough to create pain/suffering. Somewhere between 4-6 weeks is where I would feel is safe, although I'd have to research further to give exact stage of development.

Alias
04-08-2012, 09:49 AM
Save for emergency reasons, I don't believe that someone should be able to abort a fetus once the brain/nerves are developed enough to create pain/suffering. Somewhere between 4-6 weeks is where I would feel is safe, although I'd have to research further to give exact stage of development.

So as long as they can't feel anything, you're okay with putting your MORALS as the final authority over the life and death of another human being. That's very hypocritical of you to say that about the Catholic Church when you do the same thing.

Dagny
04-08-2012, 09:52 AM
So as long as they can't feel anything, you're okay with putting your MORALS as the final authority over the life and death of another human being. That's very hypocritical of you to say that about the Catholic Church when you do the same thing.
My morals? Did you ask if I was in favor of mandating abortions?

Alias
04-08-2012, 10:02 AM
My morals? Did you ask if I was in favor of mandating abortions?

You gave your opnion on when a human life can be terminated. That opinion is your MORALS.

dadakarma
04-08-2012, 10:16 AM
Actually, it's a goose/gander issue. Now kindly show me the constitutional right to tell a priest he cannot have sex with the boy? I thought the govt. has no right to create these laws?

If we remove the Rand Paul bumpersticker from the equation, does it change anything?

Only if you replace it with an OBAMA sticker.

Peter1469
04-08-2012, 10:56 AM
So why is there a federal penalty for pedophilia?

You sir, are hopelessly lost in fantasy land. Catholic School education? That would explain your obsession with putting YOUR morals, above everyone else's, and believing the law should be based on same.

I am not Catholic.

why is there a federal penalty for pedophilia They are based on the interstate implications of pedophilia.

Still confused over the word federalism?

dsolo802
04-08-2012, 03:09 PM
When our Constitution was created, the States decided that they wanted a federal government with enough power to be effective, but not so much power as to destroy State sovereignty. So the States decided to give the federal government limited and enumerated powers (see US Constitution). And one of those limited and enumerated powers was not authority to tell people who to have sex with or who not to have sex with.

You sir, just fail to understand the single greatest gift that the US has given history- the concept of federalism....

Public school education?Ouch, Peter, I have a public school education - public elementary, high school, university and law school - all State schools. Had it been otherwise, coming from a blue collar family where I was the first to become a professional, I would not have had my career, at least not without also incurring a mountain of debt.

Beyond that, as we both have agreed, there is room for good faith argument about the scope of the enumerated grants of power.

I may be reading Dagny's opening post the wrong way, but it seems to me he is making a very simple point about an argument used for example, against ObamaCare. The argument, if I'm reading his tea leaves rightly, is essentially this: Looking for language in the Constitution itself describing application of governmental powers and constraints against specific fact patterns is a fool's errand with a Constitution written at a high-level of abstraction requiring adjudication in cases and controversies by an independent Judiciary.

I had attempted to make the same argument, though in not so colorful a way, when I wrote in our Health Care conversation that our founding document is a Constitution, and not a traffic code.

To complete the thought . . .

The fact that there isn't explicit language in the 10th Amendment, specifically enabling the States to address priest sex in private diners, nor specific language in the Commerce Clause authorizing the Feds to to regulate burdens on interstate commerce imposed by treatment of uninsured people on an Urgent Care basis, nor specific language in the 13th Amendment giving the Federal Government power to address private discrimination beyond actual slavery would not of itself and necessarily mean any of the following:
.

That States cannot criminalize the conduct of pedophile priests
That the Feds cannot regulate the burden to Interstate Commerce posed by treatment of the uninsured
Assuming the admittedly wild scenario where a State exempted priest pedophile diner sex where the victim is Muslim, that the Muslim parents of children in that State couldn't rightly seek to have the exemption stricken, claiming jurisdiction under the Civil Rights Right Act of 1964, as an enforcement of the Thirteenth Amendment by "appropriate legislation" - not to mention the Equal Protection, Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses made applicable to the States by the 14th Amendment.

Peter1469
04-08-2012, 03:36 PM
BTW, for all but law school my education was from public schools. I still recognize how inadequate it is.

[QUO6. TE]1. The fact that there isn't explicit language in the 10th Amendment, specifically enabling the States to address priest sex in private diners, 2. nor specific language in the Commerce Clause authorizing the Feds to to regulate burdens on interstate commerce imposed by treatment of uninsured people on an Urgent Care basis, 3. nor specific language in the 13th Amendment giving the Federal Government power to address private discrimination beyond actual slavery would not of itself and necessarily mean any of the following:
.
4. That States cannot criminalize the conduct of pedophile priests
5. That the Feds cannot regulate the burden to Interstate Commerce posed by treatment of the uninsured
6. Assuming the admittedly wild scenario where a State exempted priest pedophile diner sex where the victim is Muslim, that the Muslim parents of children in that State couldn't rightly seek to have the exemption stricken, claiming jurisdiction under the Civil Rights Right Act of 1964, as an enforcement of the Thirteenth Amendment by "appropriate legislation" - not to mention the Equal Protection, Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses made applicable to the States by the 14th Amendment.
[/QUOTE]

1. There doesn't need to be. The Constitution did not affect the powers of the states that were not "handed" off to the federal government.

2. Contemporaneous documents make it clear that the Founders intended the Commerce Clause to be a positive right to protect interstate commerce from states trying to protect their own industries against other states; it was not intended to be a negative right where it made certain commodities illegal or otherwise used the powers as a sword to batter states into unfunded mandates.

3. And I would say that Civil Rights laws were based on the 14th Amendment not the 13th.

4. The States always had this power. The Constitution did not change this. Life, Health, and Safety.

5. If you want the federal government to have that power use the amendment process. Or just use the convention process and start over.

6. I would agree that SCOTUS would have jurisdiction to rule on an appeal of lower court cases on this topic via the 14th Amendment.

A pleasure as always.

dsolo802
04-08-2012, 04:26 PM
Pleasure as always for me too, Pete.


BTW, for all but law school my education was from public schools. I still recognize how inadequate it is.Great answer.

To be honest with you, I found grade school good, but high school poor. That said, my views on education actually are probably right of Atilla the Hun. I want to see practical education - but we'll talk more.


1. The fact that there isn't explicit language in the 10th Amendment, specifically enabling the States to address priest sex in private diners, 2. nor specific language in the Commerce Clause authorizing the Feds to to regulate burdens on interstate commerce imposed by treatment of uninsured people on an Urgent Care basis, 3. nor specific language in the 13th Amendment giving the Federal Government power to address private discrimination beyond actual slavery would not of itself and necessarily mean any of the following:
.
4. That States cannot criminalize the conduct of pedophile priests
5. That the Feds cannot regulate the burden to Interstate Commerce posed by treatment of the uninsured
6. Assuming the admittedly wild scenario where a State exempted priest pedophile diner sex where the victim is Muslim, that the Muslim parents of children in that State couldn't rightly seek to have the exemption stricken, claiming jurisdiction under the Civil Rights Right Act of 1964, as an enforcement of the Thirteenth Amendment by "appropriate legislation" - not to mention the Equal Protection, Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses made applicable to the States by the 14th Amendment.



1. There doesn't need to be. The Constitution did not affect the powers of the states that were not "handed" off to the federal government.Good and valid point. And yet it does not gainsay the point being made about the design and function of the Constitution as whole, as compared to a traffic code.

There could have been differences of opinion about what those retained powers included, owing specifically to the broad non-scenario specific grants of power in the enumerating clauses, and force and effect of the necessary and proper clause. As Madison said, the Founders could have attempted to catalog all scenarios to which the broad grants applied and, according to him, explicitly rejected that approach as impractical especially considering that the broad grants were intended to apply to scenarios then known and those that would be revealed in "futurity."


2. Contemporaneous documents make it clear that the Founders intended the Commerce Clause to be a positive right to protect interstate commerce from states trying to protect their own industries against other states; it was not intended to be a negative right where it made certain commodities illegal or otherwise used the powers as a sword to batter states into unfunded mandates.Madison's Federalist Papers addressing Commerce Clause and Necessary and Proper clauses belie that point of view, and as you have stated, SCOTUS to date would also disagree that the Commerce as further effectuated by the Necessary and Proper Clause is so limited.


3. And I would say that Civil Rights laws were based on the 14th Amendment not the 13th. As far as the reach of the Civil Right law to purely private discrimination is concerned, the source Amendment is the 13th, the only Amendment going beyond limits upon governmental action and reaching purely private conduct.

Section 2 is the part of it that authorizes reaching discrimination beyond foot-in-shackles slavery:

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation


4. The States always had this power. The Constitution did not change this. Life, Health, and Safety.They always had it, but that doesn't mean some part of that power could not be pre-empted by the Feds in a case where, let's say, the epidemic of priest pedophilia reaches to national levels and is made worse by hide-the-priest practices.


5. If you want the federal government to have that power use the amendment process. Or just use the convention process and start over.We agree SCOTUS cannot either change the object of the broad grants of enumerated power, or the nature of First Amendment constraints upon governmental action without using amendment or convention process. But again, the specific scenarios to which the broad grants and constraints apply not to be found within the four corners of the document itself. That, I take it, is the point of Dagby's post.


6. I would agree that SCOTUS would have jurisdiction to rule on an appeal of lower court cases on this topic via the 14th Amendment.

A pleasure as always.I plan to return to our Health Care conversation to address the "second" question very soon.

Cheers!

Dagny
04-08-2012, 07:58 PM
You gave your opnion on when a human life can be terminated. That opinion is your MORALS.Actually, no. My opinion is based on science. Your opinion in the abortion issue is based on morals.

You consider a clump of cells, the size of a grain of rice, to be a human.

Dr Jimmy
04-08-2012, 11:19 PM
First off the Constitution can't tell a priest who he can have sex with. So trying to get those to argue that the Constituion can is a bit redundant don't you think. Course this says nothing about State laws who can tell a Priest it is illegal to have sex with an underage minor. Even in a diner. Even in the Priests own home. then if the Priest who is caught in the act fails to submit. Then the Police can make a judgement as to any harm taking place with the victim, if they deem it necessary to use deadly force. Then right there they can blow that Priest's head clean off his shoulders.

Making him wish he never thought of using Blue Bonnet On It! :wink:

2nd Amendment solution..Thank You for playing!!

Stoney
04-09-2012, 08:44 AM
I think some are working way too hard trying to make the Constitution something it wasn't intended to be, trying to make the central government something it was never intended to be. The OP seems to suggest that states wouldn't make laws needed to protect its citizens from harm, that we have to have those laws in a central government. I see no argument to support that need.

I look at the Constitution as fence that we should approach with great care to keep the possibility of losing liberty well on the other side. Others seem to think its a fence we need to straddle or even move and that the peril on the other side is overstated, that the rewards of independence, self reliance can only be enjoyed by a few, that we need to prop up most. I think we underestimate our citizenry. I think we underestimate the temptations of power.

keyser soze
04-09-2012, 08:46 AM
I think some are working way too hard trying to make the Constitution something it wasn't intended to be, trying to make the central government something it was never intended to be. The OP seems to suggest that states wouldn't make laws needed to protect its citizens from harm, that we have to have those laws in a central government. I see no argument to support that need.

I look at the Constitution as fence that we should approach with great care to keep the possibility of losing liberty well on the other side. Others seem to think its a fence we need to straddle or even move and that the peril on the other side is overstated, that the rewards of independence, self reliance can only be enjoyed by a few, that we need to prop up most. I think we underestimate our citizenry. I think we underestimate the temptations of power.
A quick guide to why people think such things is to do a little study on the civil rights struggle...or the womens struggle for the right to vote...or the struggle to have access to birth control...they didn't happen that long ago.

Stoney
04-09-2012, 09:11 AM
I suspect we could have a lively thread over rights. But suffice it to say here that those struggles were successful, within the confines of our Constitution. If its your argument (as is Pres. Obama's) that the Constitution is deficient in not delineating rights, I disagree. The list would be never ending. The larger point to me would be that the Constitution keeps government from restricting our ability to pursue what we are calling "rights." Its a difficult issue. While I might argue that morals would eventually turn in the right direction, laws certainly accelerated that process. But laws also give rights by taking away rights. Affirmative action gives rights to some at the expense of others.

I think we seek the perfect, and that's natural. Its even good because we can certainly improve. But we too often forget that every law restricts liberty. I don't say that we don't need laws, that they aren't necessary. But our form of government makes the process of passing laws difficult for good reason.

Alias
04-09-2012, 09:56 AM
Actually, no. My opinion is based on science. Your opinion in the abortion issue is based on morals.

You consider a clump of cells, the size of a grain of rice, to be a human.

A human being is a human being from conception. Human sperm and a human egg. That's science.

Dagny
04-09-2012, 10:17 AM
A human being is a human being from conception. Human sperm and a human egg. That's science.
Actually, that isn't science.

Alias
04-09-2012, 10:19 AM
Actually, that isn't science.

The egg and the sperm aren't human? Do tell. What are they?

dsolo802
04-09-2012, 10:28 AM
I suspect we could have a lively thread over rights. But suffice it to say here that those struggles were successful, within the confines of our Constitution. If its your argument (as is Pres. Obama's) that the Constitution is deficient in not delineating rights, I disagree.I don't think that's anyone's argument. If we are talking about the Commerce Clause for example, the argument of some is that the Clause means what it says on its face, that is, that Congress has the power and right to regulate Interstate Commerce. The people who argue against it say that the Constitution means less than what it says. When you look at the language AND contemporary sources, I think the most honest thing that can be said is, what we have are good faith differences about the scope of the enumerated powers. Neither side of the debate about Federalism is arguing in favor of powers outside of those enumerated.


The list would be never ending. The larger point to me would be that the Constitution keeps government from restricting our ability to pursue what we are calling "rights."That is how one side frames the other side's argument. It is not a fair framing.


Its a difficult issue. While I might argue that morals would eventually turn in the right direction, laws certainly accelerated that process. But laws also give rights by taking away rights. Affirmative action gives rights to some at the expense of others.

I think we seek the perfect, and that's natural. Its even good because we can certainly improve. But we too often forget that every law restricts liberty. It is simply not true that every law restricts Liberty. To Nemo's point, without a Constitution that both protects the People from over-reaching by government and empowers an independent Judiciary to uphold that protection, the People would be able to claim inalienable rights till the cows come home but would have no practical means of protecting and enforcing them against the will of those in power.

As Keyser Sose was pointing out, either here or in one of the other active threads, the lives and liberties of women and black people right now, for example, would be very different had it not been for the assertion of Constitutionally protected rights against the majority.

Generally speaking, civil rights is not a zero sum game. The enfranchisement of women did not disenfranchise men. Affirmative action, done rightly, also does not deny any one else of their opportunity and liberty. This particular issue is a complex one and should be discussed in greater depth in a thread all of its own.


I don't say that we don't need laws, that they aren't necessary. But our form of government makes the process of passing laws difficult for good reason.That is a vantage point that follows from the view that enumerated powers are of very limited scope.

The other side of the debate, also tethered to the enumerated powers, naturally sees it differently.

The Constitution creates our form of government. Because it is a Constitution and not a traffic code, it grants broadly framed powers and establishes broadly framed limitations on power, leaving an Independent Judiciary to say how they apply to infinite fact patterns that can arise.

If the scope of the enumerated powers is as limited as some people argue that it is, the need to amend the Constitution would arise frequently. How else to adapt it to new scenarios that could scarcely have been conceived a decade ago much less back at the time of the Nation's founding?

If the scope of the powers is as broad as the actual language of the Constitution says it is, the Constitution is a living document that can well maintain its vitality and relevance for the ages.

According to the view that ties the scope of the enumerated powers to the plain language of the Constitution itself, one would need a Constitutional amendment only if one sought to add a new broad power, or to limit what had previously been granted.

keyser soze
04-09-2012, 10:32 AM
You have my thanks for taking the time along with Nemo and Peter to address these issues at length...(you to Dagny) I'm following along and learning more as this continues...

Thanks!!!!

Alias
04-09-2012, 10:45 AM
You have my thanks for taking the time along with Nemo and Peter to address these issues at length...(you to Dagny) I'm following along and learning more as this continues...

Thanks!!!!

I learned something really neat today. Dagny told me that the human egg and human sperm aren't human and science says so.

dsolo802
04-09-2012, 11:29 AM
I learned something really neat today. Dagny told me that the human egg and human sperm aren't human and science says so.He is saying the obvious: a human egg is not a human being. A sperm is not a human being.

Alias
04-09-2012, 11:33 AM
He is saying the obvious: a human egg is not a human being. A sperm is not a human being.

I am saying something as obvious as well. A human egg and a human sperm create a human being at conception.

dsolo802
04-09-2012, 11:46 AM
That is NOT obvious to all. It is, in fact, obvious only to people holding certain religious beliefs. Science doesn't know when human life begins.

As far as the law is concerned, we do know it's okay to pull the plug a human being who becomes brain dead.

Alias
04-09-2012, 11:49 AM
That is NOT obvious to all. It is, in fact, obvious only to people holding certain religious beliefs. Science doesn't know when human life begins.

As far as the law is concerned, we do know it's okay to pull the plug a human being who becomes brain dead.

I didn't say anything about when human life begins. I said a human egg and a human sperm create a human being at conception. That is a scientific fact.

dsolo802
04-09-2012, 12:32 PM
I didn't say anything about when human life begins. I said a human egg and a human sperm create a human being at conception. That is a scientific fact.It is not a scientific fact. That is a religious belief of a particular sect of a particular religion.

Alias
04-09-2012, 01:26 PM
It is not a scientific fact. That is a religious belief of a particular sect of a particular religion.

Which sect are you speaking of?

dsolo802
04-09-2012, 05:23 PM
Which sect are you speaking of?Here as some examples for you:

Anglican & Methodist Christians, believe human life begins when the fetus can live apart from the mother.

Evangelical Lutherans talk about a stages of development beginning at conception and leading - over time - to human person-hood.

According to Judaism, human life begins when the head emerges from the womb.

According to Islam, a fetus has no soul until 120 days into a pregnancy.

The notion of "ensoulment" - that which makes a human life, as opposed to less than human life is a religious notion, and not one embraced by science.

Alias
04-09-2012, 05:36 PM
Here as some examples for you:

Anglican & Methodist Christians, believe human life begins when the fetus can live apart from the mother.

Evangelical Lutherans talk about a stages of development beginning at conception and leading - over time - to human person-hood.

According to Judaism, human life begins when the head emerges from the womb.

According to Islam, a fetus has no soul until 120 days into a pregnancy.

The notion of "ensoulment" - that which makes a human life, as opposed to less than human life is a religious notion, and not one embraced by science.

You're confused, friend. I never said a word about when life begins. I already told you that, but you are determined to frame this about when life begins. I never addressed that point.

I said a human egg and a human sperm create a human being. That has nothing to do with any "religious sect". That's a scientific fact.

Dagny
04-09-2012, 05:55 PM
You're confused, friend. I never said a word about when life begins. I already told you that, but you are determined to frame this about when life begins. I never addressed that point.

I said a human egg and a human sperm create a human being. That has nothing to do with any "religious sect". That's a scientific fact.

A tomato seed, is not a tomato. It will develop into a tomato, given the proper conditions.

An egg, is not a chicken.

Alias
04-09-2012, 06:00 PM
A tomato seed, is not a tomato. It will develop into a tomato, given the proper conditions.

An egg, is not a chicken.

I never said a human egg is a human being. I said a human egg and a human sperm create a human being.

Try again.

Dagny
04-09-2012, 06:01 PM
I never said a human egg is a human being. I said a human egg and a human sperm create a human being.

Try again.And a fertilized seed is not a tomato.

Alias
04-09-2012, 06:03 PM
And a fertilized seed is not a tomato.

What is it?

Dagny
04-09-2012, 06:07 PM
What is it?
What do you think it is?

Alias
04-09-2012, 06:11 PM
What do you think it is?

Naw, you're not gonna pull that shit on me.

You said it isn't a tomato and I asked you what it is. Now tell me what it is if it isn't a tomato like you claim.

dadakarma
04-09-2012, 06:26 PM
What do you think it is?

It's a sprout. :grin:

Alias
04-09-2012, 06:28 PM
It's a sprout. :grin:

Tomato sprout to be exact. :laugh:

Dagny
04-09-2012, 06:31 PM
Naw, you're not gonna pull that shit on me.

You said it isn't a tomato and I asked you what it is. Now tell me what it is if it isn't a tomato like you claim.
Are you for real? WTF could it possibly be? Do you open a pack of seeds, and make a BLT?

dadakarma
04-09-2012, 06:34 PM
Are you for real? WTF could it possibly be? Do you open a pack of seeds, and make a BLT?

:rofl:

Alias
04-09-2012, 06:36 PM
Are you for real? WTF could it possibly be? Do you open a pack of seeds, and make a BLT?

You are the one who said it isn't a tomato. Tell me what it is.

Dagny
04-09-2012, 06:36 PM
Tomato sprout to be exact. :laugh:
No. Not all seeds are viable. A seed will sprout, when/if it germinates. A viable tomato seed has the potential to grow into a tomato, just as an embryo has the potential to grow into a fetus.

Dagny
04-09-2012, 06:37 PM
:rofl:
Even my cat bores after a few swats of a toy.

Alias
04-09-2012, 06:39 PM
No. Not all seeds are viable. A seed will sprout, when/if it germinates. A viable tomato seed has the potential to grow into a tomato, just as an embryo has the potential to grow into a fetus.

You haven't replied to post #48 yet. Are you going to reply or just skip that one?

Dagny
04-09-2012, 06:42 PM
You haven't replied to post #48 yet. Are you going to reply or just skip that one?
Yes

Alias
04-09-2012, 06:42 PM
Yes

Pitiful thing.

Stoney
04-09-2012, 07:10 PM
Dsolo802,


“I don't think that's anyone's argument.”


I'll have to take your word for it. As for Pres. Obama, he said that in an interview.


You're discussion of the Constitution as a “living document” is more interesting than most, and I mean that as a compliment. I see the respect, the commitment in your words. But I will continue to disagree that its the job of a few unelected individuals to determine in what direction our Constitution should be evolving. Again, our President seems to agree with that.


One of the justices recently made a speech overseas recommending that our Constitution not be modeled after, while seemingly making the same rebuke, that our Constitution doesn't sufficiently define rights. I know better than to attribute those some criticisms to others, but would say that some are certainly making those arguments.


“That is how one side frames the other side's argument. It is not a fair framing.”


Maybe it is close to the framer's argument, that rights are inherent. In another thread (or maybe in this one) it was explained to me that private property is not private when that property is used to serve public needs or desires. I'd never heard that before. But that right of the public to tell that property owner what he can and can't do with his property surely limits his liberty. What example would you offer of a law that does not limit liberty?


“The enfranchisement of women did not disenfranchise men. Affirmative action, done rightly, also does not deny any one else of their opportunity and liberty.”


I see the caveat “done rightly.” But even if its done rightly it is not fair for for minorities to have “points” added to their job applications because of being minorities. Right or wrong, that's how its done.


A social contract that has its meaning altered without general consensus is a source for strife and will be as much as a poker game that has rules altered without general consensus. I don't see how we can endure without rules we can count on.

keyser soze
04-09-2012, 09:04 PM
Most of the 'strife' you speak of is contained in approx 26% of the population...they're the same ones that supported everything Duhbwa did and said...right down to calling the constitution just a piece of paper and either you're for us or against us making over 50% of the population anti-American by his definition. There was so much wrong for 8 years the GOP can't run fast enough to escape him AND their policies. Now we hear outrage...outrage I tell you...about Obama's remarks about the 'activist' Supreme Court when all of us have heard the exact same thing for over 40 years from the right concerning civil rights law etc.

It's absurd. They ruled that money talks and walks and has a vote....goodbye democracy.

Mister D
04-09-2012, 09:06 PM
Most of the 'strife' you speak of is contained in approx 26% of the population...they're the same ones that supported everything Duhbwa did and said...right down to calling the constitution just a piece of paper and either you're for us or against us making over 50% of the population anti-American by his definition. There was so much wrong for 8 years the GOP can't run fast enough to escape him AND their policies. Now we hear outrage...outrage I tell you...about Obama's remarks about the 'activist' Supreme Court when all of us have heard the exact same thing for over 40 years from the right concerning civil rights law etc.

It's absurd. They ruled that money talks and walks and has a vote....goodbye democracy.

Keyser, Bush never said that.

keyser soze
04-09-2012, 09:10 PM
Maybe not but he didn't treat it any differently did he...no he didn't. He was highly illegal and he and Cheney and many others in his administration are criminals and should be prosecuted...but of course Obama won't because he's continuing the same policies...not different liberal communist etc policy...Bush/Chaney/Kock bros policy...that's the joke. It took getting a trojan horse democrat to be elected to do as much damage as he has...every policy he puts forth is republican.

Peter1469
04-09-2012, 09:10 PM
Even the left wing snopes agrees that Bush didn't say that.

keyser soze
04-09-2012, 09:11 PM
Soooo...he was such an upright guy...he was Cheney's puppet. The man is brain damaged.

Mister D
04-09-2012, 09:15 PM
Maybe not but he didn't treat it any differently did he...no he didn't. He was highly illegal and he and Cheney and many others in his administration are criminals and should be prosecuted...but of course Obama won't because he's continuing the same policies...not different liberal communist etc policy...Bush/Chaney/Kock bros policy...that's the joke. It took getting a trojan horse democrat to be elected to do as much damage as he has...every policy he puts forth is republican.

It's a lie. He never said it.

You're starting to get it, Keyser, albeit while foaming at the mouth. If every policy BO puts forth looks "Republican" that's only because the major parties are really one party.

Mister D
04-09-2012, 09:16 PM
Soooo...he was such an upright guy...he was Cheney's puppet. The man is brain damaged.


It's amazing how after repeating a lie you continue to attack another man's character.

keyser soze
04-09-2012, 09:22 PM
It's a lie. He never said it.

You're starting to get it, Keyser, albeit while foaming at the mouth. If every policy BO puts forth looks "Republican" that's only because the major parties are really one party.
:rofl: Irony...

Mister D
04-09-2012, 09:23 PM
:rofl: Irony...

What is is ironic, Keyser?

keyser soze
04-09-2012, 09:23 PM
It's amazing how after repeating a lie you continue to attack another man's character.
Yeah...you're superior and wouldn't do such a thing....:rofl:...you're a hoot. At least I know what I'm saying and can recognize cognitive dissonance.

Mister D
04-09-2012, 09:25 PM
Yeah...you're superior and wouldn't do such a thing....:rofl:...you're a hoot. At least I know what I'm saying and can recognize cognitive dissonance.

What lies have I repeated, Keyser? Be specific. In any case, you now know that what you said was a lie and I'm glad you are able to recognize your cognitive dissonance. :smiley:

dsolo802
04-09-2012, 09:38 PM
I said a human egg and a human sperm create a human being at conception. That is a scientific fact.

It is not a scientific fact that a human egg and human sperm create a human being at conception.

Fact is, as I've shown, not even all of Christendom agrees about that.

wingrider
04-09-2012, 11:39 PM
It is not a scientific fact that a human egg and human sperm create a human being at conception.

Fact is, as I've shown, not even all of Christendom agrees about that.[/I][/COLOR]
ok?????????????????? just what does a human egg and a human sperm create?.. I want to see where you go with this!

dsolo802
04-10-2012, 12:37 AM
ok?????????????????? just what does a human egg and a human sperm create?.. I want to see where you go with this!Eventually you have a human being - just not at conception

The question was whether you have a human being at conception. The answer for billions of people is no.

As I pointed out, science does not attempt to answer that question, much less offer anything like consensus.

There is no uniformity in Christendom about it.

Neither Muslims nor Jews put the magic moment at conception.

I pointed out, even our justice system recognizes that there is something like a dimension of consciousness that must exist for there to be a human life - otherwise it would be murder to pull the plug when brain death occurs.

wingrider
04-10-2012, 12:44 AM
Eventually you have a human being - just not at conception

The question was whether you have a human being at conception. The answer for billions of people is no.

As I pointed out, science does not attempt to answer that question, much less offer anything like consensus.

There is no uniformity in Christendom about it.

Neither Muslims nor Jews put the magic moment at conception.

I pointed out, even our justice system recognizes that there is something like a dimension of consciousness that must exist for there to be a human life - otherwise it would be murder to pull the plug when brain death occurs. all I can do is respond with this:



Question: "Does the Bible teach that life begins at conception?"

Answer: The Bible does teach that life begins at conception. Every culture's view of when human life begins changes as society's values, moral standards, and knowledge about the process of embryonic development change. Prior to the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that allowed abortion on demand, developing embryos were considered unborn persons. Now, even a fetus that could survive on its own outside its mother's womb could be aborted, under certain medical circumstances. This demonstrates that we do not consider an unborn child to be a true human being.

Science tells us that human life begins at the time of conception. From the moment fertilization takes place, the child's genetic makeup is already complete. Its gender has already been determined, along with its height and hair, eye and skin color. The only thing the embryo needs to become a fully-functioning being is the time to grow and develop.

More importantly, God reveals to us in His Word that not only does life begin at conception, but He knows who we are even before then (Jeremiah 1:5 (http://ebible.com/query?utf=8%E2%9C%93&query=Jeremiah%201%3A5&translation=ESV&redirect_iframe=http://www.gotquestions.org/eBible.html)). King David said this about God's role in our conception: "For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb . . . your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be" (Psalm 139:13 (http://ebible.com/query?utf=8%E2%9C%93&query=Psalm%20139%3A13&translation=ESV&redirect_iframe=http://www.gotquestions.org/eBible.html); 16 (http://ebible.com/query?utf=8%E2%9C%93&query=Psalm%20139%3A16&translation=ESV&redirect_iframe=http://www.gotquestions.org/eBible.html)).

Society continually seeks to devalue the lives of the unborn, creating its own definitions of humanity based on distorted views of morality. But the undeniable fact is that life begins at creation, and a human is created as soon as he or she is conceived. God is present at our creation; He is, in fact, our Creator. Our value as human beings created in His image is conceived even before we are.

Recommended Resource: The Cost of Choice: Women Evaluate the Impact of Abortion by Erika Bachiochi, Editor (http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?event=AFF&p=1011693&item_no=4030510).

dsolo802
04-10-2012, 01:46 AM
Dsolo802,

“I don't think that's anyone's argument"

I'll have to take your word for it. As for Pres. Obama, he said that in an interview. Stoney, I believe you when you tell me you heard or read an interview with the President where the President talked about creating new Constitutional rights. On the chance, however small that you have misread or misheard what he said, or misunderstood, would you mind giving me a cite to it? I'm ready to be amazed and disheartened, I'm just not there yet.


You're discussion of the Constitution as a “living document” is more interesting than most, and I mean that as a compliment. I see the respect, the commitment in your words. But I will continue to disagree that its the job of a few unelected individuals to determine in what direction our Constitution should be evolving. Again, our President seems to agree with that.If the quote was about the Constitution being a living document, then I understand the confusion. If I'm right about the confusion, this should go a ways to creating a bit more clarity. When the Founders wrote the First Amendment, they provided protection for Freedom of Speech. When they wrote that Amendment no one had heard or even conceived of the telephone, radio or motion pictures much less computers and the Internet. And yet, no one seriously thinks that Freedom of Speech doesn't not apply to expression using these media even though there is no mention of these things in the Amendment itself. The object of the Amendment is clear - to protect the right of the People to express themselves freely, and is not altered in the least when applied to expression using these new media.

Well, you might say, with the Bill or Rights, we are talking about protecting the rights of the people from government. It makes sense to give the Constitutional constraints on government power an expansive reading. When we are talking about determining proper scope of the enumerated grants to government, shouldn't we give the words of the Constitution a restrictive reading?

I realize this aligns with the philosophical leanings of many people, but the answer is no. The best evidence of what the Constitution means is the language of the Constitution itself; the language actually chosen by the Founders to express their intent. I think we can all agree they could express what they meant to say in words better than most.

The language of the grants of enumerated power are similarly broad. They are short and expressed in language at a high level. For example, the Commerce Clause, grants to Congress the power:
"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."

There are no words in the Constitution expressly stating what kind of commerce among the states is subject to Congressional regulation, and what kind are not. Unless we are to engage in the very kind of judicial activism that many people have been concerned about over the years, the obvious object of the grant was to give to Congress authority to regulate all kinds of Commerce among the States.

We could infer that the Founders wanted to bundle with the enumerated powers all incidental power required to make the grants effective - but we don't need to. The Constitution through the necessary and proper clause expressly states that this was the intent.

In my earlier chat with Peter I quoted from the language of Madison, who wrote the bulk of the Constitution. Madison in the Federalist Paper on the Necessary and Proper Clause states the Founders expressly rejected an approach that would have had them catalog all of the scenarios to which the grants applied, noting that this would have quickly rendered the Constitution "a dead letter." He says, the object of the grants are intended to apply to scenarios known then and to those that would be revealed in "futurity."


One of the justices recently made a speech overseas recommending that our Constitution not be modeled after, while seemingly making the same rebuke, that our Constitution doesn't sufficiently define rights. I know better than to attribute those some criticisms to others, but would say that some are certainly making those arguments. I'm not sure what the Justice was attempting to accomplish by her words, but I did listen to what she had to say. I am certain she did not make the argument that the Judiciary is "creating new rights."


“That is how one side frames the other side's argument. It is not a fair framing.”


Maybe it is close to the framer's argument, that rights are inherent. In another thread (or maybe in this one) it was explained to me that private property is not private when that property is used to serve public needs or desires. I'd never heard that before. But that right of the public to tell that property owner what he can and can't do with his property surely limits his liberty. To be sure, whenever people share space, whether it be an extended family, between a husband and a wife, in a community with a home owners association, in a state driving on streets shared with thousands of other citizens, as part of a Nation, paying taxes supporting national infrastructure, the common defense and the common welfare, we give up a lot - and get a lot back in return. That is how it is in the very nature of things.


What example would you offer of a law that does not limit liberty? The First 10 amendments to the US Constitution, and the "Cases and Controversies" clause (Article III, Section 2) without which there is no right and liberty we possess that could not be taken from us by majority rule.


“The enfranchisement of women did not disenfranchise men. Affirmative action, done rightly, also does not deny any one else of their opportunity and liberty.”



I see the caveat “done rightly.” Good catch! - the caveat definitely needs to be in there.


But even if its done rightly it is not fair for for minorities to have “points” added to their job applications because of being minorities. Right or wrong, that's how its done.It is a very important and complicated topic, one deserving of its own thread.


A social contract that has its meaning altered without general consensus is a source for strife and will be as much as a poker game that has rules altered without general consensus. I don't see how we can endure without rules we can count on.Your point is a very good one. Even the perception that the rules have been changed without following the correct process is a terrible corrosive to our society.

Here's hoping is you will see that the commitment to my words is backed reason, the language of the Constitution itself, and the words of the fellow who wrote most of the Constitution - James Madison. It's too late this evening for me to more fully excerpt for you what he had to say about the things we are discussing. I will however do this tomorrow when I can.

dsolo802
04-10-2012, 01:58 AM
all I can do is respond with this:



Question: "Does the Bible teach that life begins at conception?"

Answer: The Bible does teach that life begins at conception. Every culture's view of when human life begins changes as society's values, moral standards, and knowledge about the process of embryonic development change. Prior to the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that allowed abortion on demand, developing embryos were considered unborn persons. Now, even a fetus that could survive on its own outside its mother's womb could be aborted, under certain medical circumstances. This demonstrates that we do not consider an unborn child to be a true human being.

Science tells us that human life begins at the time of conception. From the moment fertilization takes place, the child's genetic makeup is already complete. Its gender has already been determined, along with its height and hair, eye and skin color. The only thing the embryo needs to become a fully-functioning being is the time to grow and develop.

More importantly, God reveals to us in His Word that not only does life begin at conception, but He knows who we are even before then (Jeremiah 1:5 (http://ebible.com/query?utf=8✓&query=Jeremiah 1%3A5&translation=ESV&redirect_iframe=http://www.gotquestions.org/eBible.html)). King David said this about God's role in our conception: "For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb . . . your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be" (Psalm 139:13 (http://ebible.com/query?utf=8✓&query=Psalm 139%3A13&translation=ESV&redirect_iframe=http://www.gotquestions.org/eBible.html); 16 (http://ebible.com/query?utf=8✓&query=Psalm 139%3A16&translation=ESV&redirect_iframe=http://www.gotquestions.org/eBible.html)).

Society continually seeks to devalue the lives of the unborn, creating its own definitions of humanity based on distorted views of morality. But the undeniable fact is that life begins at creation, and a human is created as soon as he or she is conceived. God is present at our creation; He is, in fact, our Creator. Our value as human beings created in His image is conceived even before we are.

Recommended Resource: The Cost of Choice: Women Evaluate the Impact of Abortion by Erika Bachiochi, Editor (http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?event=AFF&p=1011693&item_no=4030510).


That is one person writing. If you look, Wingrider, you will find many religious authorities, organizations and leaders offering very different views from those expressed by Erika Bachiochi. As I said, even major sects within Christianity do not agree.

I know there are millions of devout Christians who are certain human life begins at conception. I am telling you there are millions of devout Christians, Jews, Muslims and others who do not hold to that point of view, and they are as certain in their beliefs.

Science does not tell us anything about the moment when human life begins.

In a country that honors the religious beliefs of all, how can one religious sect's views be honored over the others?

Dagny
04-10-2012, 06:10 AM
To be sure, whenever people share space, whether it be an extended family, between a husband and a wife, in a community with a home owners association, in a state driving on streets shared with thousands of other citizens, as part of a Nation, paying taxes supporting national infrastructure, the common defense and the common welfare, we give up a lot - and get a lot back in return. That is how it is in the very nature of things.


Succinct, accurate, and encompassing.

Stoney
04-10-2012, 07:04 AM
dsolo802,

"Stoney, I believe you when you tell me you heard or read an interview with the President where the President talked about creating new Constitutional rights. On the chance, however small that you have misread or misheard what he said, or misunderstood, would you mind giving me a cite to it? I'm ready to be amazed and disheartened, I'm just not there yet."


I didn't find the actual video (didn't take the time) but do have the words if you'll accept the source.



If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be OK. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.
And that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.



http://freedomswings.wordpress.com/2008/10/27/obama-thinks-constitution-flawed-without-redistribution-of-wealth/

Stoney
04-10-2012, 07:07 AM
Stoney, I believe you when you tell me you heard or read an interview with the President where the President talked about creating new Constitutional rights. On the chance, however small that you have misread or misheard what he said, or misunderstood, would you mind giving me a cite to it? I'm ready to be amazed and disheartened, I'm just not there yet.

If the quote was about the Constitution being a living document, then I understand the confusion. If I'm right about the confusion, this should go a ways to creating a bit more clarity. When the Founders wrote the First Amendment, they provided protection for Freedom of Speech. When they wrote that Amendment no one had heard or even conceived of the telephone, radio or motion pictures much less computers and the Internet. And yet, no one seriously thinks that Freedom of Speech doesn't not apply to expression using these media even though there is no mention of these things in the Amendment itself. The object of the Amendment is clear - to protect the right of the People to express themselves freely, and is not altered in the least when applied to expression using these new media.

Well, you might say, with the Bill or Rights, we are talking about protecting the rights of the people from government. It makes sense to give the Constitutional constraints on government power an expansive reading. When we are talking about determining proper scope of the enumerated grants to government, shouldn't we give the words of the Constitution a restrictive reading?

I realize this aligns with the philosophical leanings of many people, but the answer is no. The best evidence of what the Constitution means is the language of the Constitution itself; the language actually chosen by the Founders to express their intent. I think we can all agree they could express what they meant to say in words better than most.

The language of the grants of enumerated power are similarly broad. They are short and expressed in language at a high level. For example, the Commerce Clause, grants to Congress the power:
"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."

There are no words in the Constitution expressly stating what kind of commerce among the states is subject to Congressional regulation, and what kind are not. Unless we are to engage in the very kind of judicial activism that many people have been concerned about over the years, the obvious object of the grant was to give to Congress authority to regulate all kinds of Commerce among the States.

We could infer that the Founders wanted to bundle with the enumerated powers all incidental power required to make the grants effective - but we don't need to. The Constitution through the necessary and proper clause expressly states that this was the intent.

In my earlier chat with Peter I quoted from the language of Madison, who wrote the bulk of the Constitution. Madison in the Federalist Paper on the Necessary and Proper Clause states the Founders expressly rejected an approach that would have had them catalog all of the scenarios to which the grants applied, noting that this would have quickly rendered the Constitution "a dead letter." He says, the object of the grants are intended to apply to scenarios known then and to those that would be revealed in "futurity."

I'm not sure what the Justice was attempting to accomplish by her words, but I did listen to what she had to say. I am certain she did not make the argument that the Judiciary is "creating new rights."


“That is how one side frames the other side's argument. It is not a fair framing.”

To be sure, whenever people share space, whether it be an extended family, between a husband and a wife, in a community with a home owners association, in a state driving on streets shared with thousands of other citizens, as part of a Nation, paying taxes supporting national infrastructure, the common defense and the common welfare, we give up a lot - and get a lot back in return. That is how it is in the very nature of things.

The First 10 amendments to the US Constitution, and the "Cases and Controversies" clause (Article III, Section 2) without which there is no right and liberty we possess that could not be taken from us by majority rule.


“The enfranchisement of women did not disenfranchise men. Affirmative action, done rightly, also does not deny any one else of their opportunity and liberty.”


Good catch! - the caveat definitely needs to be in there.

It is a very important and complicated topic, one deserving of its own thread.

Your point is a very good one. Even the perception that the rules have been changed without following the correct process is a terrible corrosive to our society.

Here's hoping is you will see that the commitment to my words is backed reason, the language of the Constitution itself, and the words of the fellow who wrote most of the Constitution - James Madison. It's too late this evening for me to more fully excerpt for you what he had to say about the things we are discussing. I will however do this tomorrow when I can.

I appreciate the response, but don't have time to evaluate and respond this morning. I'll try this evening.

dsolo802
04-10-2012, 07:02 PM
dsolo802,

"Stoney, I believe you when you tell me you heard or read an interview with the President where the President talked about creating new Constitutional rights. On the chance, however small that you have misread or misheard what he said, or misunderstood, would you mind giving me a cite to it? I'm ready to be amazed and disheartened, I'm just not there yet."


I didn't find the actual video (didn't take the time) but do have the words if you'll accept the source.



http://freedomswings.wordpress.com/2008/10/27/obama-thinks-constitution-flawed-without-redistribution-of-wealth/As I read this quote Stoney, I see a President who thinks it would have been "radical" for the Warren Court to get into redistribution of wealth; radical because it is prohibited by "essential" Constitutional constraints:
.
"To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution."[emphasis added].

.


This quote not only shows the President acknowledging it would be "radical" to engage in redistribution of wealth, but wrong. You don't call constraints "essential" if you think they can be dispensed with.

Stoney
04-11-2012, 06:56 PM
As I read this quote Stoney, I see a President who thinks it would have been "radical" for the Warren Court to get into redistribution of wealth; radical because it is prohibited by "essential" Constitutional constraints:
.
"To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution."[emphasis added].

.


This quote not only shows the President acknowledging it would be "radical" to engage in redistribution of wealth, but wrong. You don't call constraints "essential" if you think they can be dispensed with.

You might have me confused with another poster. I don't recall talking about redistribution or wealth in our discussion . We were talking about, "Stoney, I believe you when you tell me you heard or read an interview with the President where the President talked about creating new Constitutional rights. On the chance, however small that you have misread or misheard what he said, or misunderstood, would you mind giving me a cite to it? I'm ready to be amazed and disheartened, I'm just not there yet."

And here's Pres. Obama talking about new Constitutional rights:


If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be OK.

dsolo802
04-11-2012, 07:20 PM
Stoney, a judiciary that honors constitutional restraints on federal action does not create new rights - by definition.

As for the rest of the quote, that also does not reflect someone who wishes to created new rights for dispossessed people, it is about suing to make certain that existing rights are made available to them:


"If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be OK."


Getting the dispossessed people the benefit of "formal rights" - that is rights that are already created - is not about creating new Constitutional rights either.

Stoney
04-11-2012, 07:44 PM
Dsolo802,


“If the quote was about the Constitution being a living document, then I understand the confusion. If I'm right about the confusion, this should go a ways to creating a bit more clarity. When the Founders wrote the First Amendment, they provided protection for Freedom of Speech. When they wrote that Amendment no one had heard or even conceived of the telephone, radio or motion pictures much less computers and the Internet. And yet, no one seriously thinks that Freedom of Speech doesn't not apply to expression using these media even though there is no mention of these things in the Amendment itself. The object of the Amendment is clear - to protect the right of the People to express themselves freely, and is not altered in the least when applied to expression using these new media.”


I don't understand how this clears up confusion. Just because they didn't mention books, placards, notes, carvings, sculptures and paintings doesn't mean that the principle of free speech doesn't apply to computers, telephones, radio, etc. There's no need to expand the amendment because the principle is what protects citizens from the constraints of government.


“When we are talking about determining proper scope of the enumerated grants to government, shouldn't we give the words of the Constitution a restrictive reading?”


I think we should read what was written with the intent. Otherwise we're changing the rules without using the method agreed for changing rules.


I too am a great admirer of Madison and I'll add Jefferson. I've visited their homes on several occasions and have read a lot of what they have written. Maybe you know that there is an alcove in Jefferson's home that was Madison's bed when he visited, that they were the best of friends and shared a passion that it would be hard to say any have followed. Maybe you know how much reading, how much time and effort they put into those few pages that Madison is mostly credited with. Maybe you know that they wrote religiously during the framing of the Constitution, even though Jefferson was in France at the time.


I trust their judgment, their intent, their diligence, much more that any of our contemporary representatives. I'm afraid much of what we've done with their work to date is to muck it up.


I appreciate your thoughtful response.

Stoney
04-11-2012, 07:57 PM
Stoney, a judiciary that honors constitutional restraints on federal action does not create new rights - by definition.

As for the rest of the quote, that also does not reflect someone who wishes to created new rights for dispossessed people, it is about suing to make certain that existing rights are made available to them:

"If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be OK."


Getting the dispossessed people the benefit of "formal rights" - that is rights that are already created - is not about creating new Constitutional rights either.

I see us pushing off in different directions in the weeds here. I see your point. I see this as creating government's ability to define rights that were left, for right or wrong, for society to define. I am not saying that it wasn't the right thing to do, although I won't promise not to make that argument.

Thanks,

dsolo802
04-11-2012, 11:39 PM
I see us pushing off in different directions in the weeds here. I see your point. I see this as creating government's ability to define rights that were left, for right or wrong, for society to define. I am not saying that it wasn't the right thing to do, although I won't promise not to make that argument.

Thanks,Good discussion. You think the Judiciary has created rights where none previously existed. I think, and the Judiciary does too, that it is acting upon and enforcing existing rights and obligations.

Thank you.

Stoney
04-12-2012, 07:21 AM
Good discussion. You think the Judiciary has created rights where none previously existed. I think, and the Judiciary does too, that it is acting upon and enforcing existing rights and obligations.

Thank you.

That doesn't represent my position. I see that the rights exist. What I don't see is that there was an intent for central government to define them. When they did they, with the best of intentions, produced rights for some at the expense of others.

2Ts
04-12-2012, 08:20 AM
When our Constitution was created, the States decided that they wanted a federal government with enough power to be effective, but not so much power as to destroy State sovereignty. So the States decided to give the federal government limited and enumerated powers (see US Constitution). And one of those limited and enumerated powers was not authority to tell people who to have sex with or who not to have sex with.

You sir, just fail to understand the single greatest gift that the US has given history- the concept of federalism....

Public school education?

explain SCOTUS decision on Lawrence v. Texas

2Ts
04-12-2012, 08:31 AM
Here as some examples for you:

Anglican & Methodist Christians, believe human life begins when the fetus can live apart from the mother.

Evangelical Lutherans talk about a stages of development beginning at conception and leading - over time - to human person-hood.

According to Judaism, human life begins when the head emerges from the womb.

According to Islam, a fetus has no soul until 120 days into a pregnancy.

The notion of "ensoulment" - that which makes a human life, as opposed to less than human life is a religious notion, and not one embraced by science.


and Arizonians believe live begins 2 weeks before conception

2Ts
04-12-2012, 08:32 AM
A tomato seed, is not a tomato. It will develop into a tomato, given the proper conditions.

An egg, is not a chicken.

even a fertilized chicken egg is not a chicken

Alias
04-12-2012, 09:20 AM
even a fertilized chicken egg is not a chicken

It's a chicken egg. Playing word games is fun. The scientific fact is a human sperm and human egg create a human being.

It's fun to watch indoctrinated minds refuse to accept common sense.

dsolo802
04-12-2012, 09:41 AM
That doesn't represent my position. I see that the rights exist.If the rights exist, the Judiciary is duty bound under the Constitution to enforce them when properly presented with a "case or controversy." How can the Judiciary be true to the Constitution and not settle a case and controversy?? If deciding cases and controversies is "defining" rights, and you think that is not proper, that can only mean to me that the Constitution the Founders produced is not the Constitution you want.


What I don't see is that there was an intent for central government to define them.Of course, Constitutional rights are not created by the central government.

As you said, in this thread, the Constitution does not need to specifically mention placards and the radio and the Internet to apply the principle of "free speech" to cases involving those and other new media, including those not yet created or in use. Applying principles in cases and controversies is neither creating nor defining rights.

When Congress is authorized by the Constitution to act on behalf of the Nation, as it is with the grants of enumerated power, right there - THAT is the intent for "central government to create" rights - and duties. The Central government can lawfully enact a draft calling people to military service. It can require you to pay taxes. It can legislate to regulate Interstate Commerce.


When they did they, with the best of intentions, produced rights for some at the expense of others.What rights of some group has the Judiciary "defined" which are at the expense of others?

Peter1469
04-12-2012, 12:11 PM
explain SCOTUS decision on Lawrence v. Texas


The right to privacy (surprisingly only discovered in 1973) was applied to the States via the 14th Amendment.

Stoney
04-12-2012, 07:09 PM
"If the rights exist, the Judiciary is duty bound under the Constitution to enforce them..."

I see absolutely no basis for that. You use my argument about principles to prove the assertion, but I don't see a principle in the Constitution to protect rights from any entity other than government.

I agree that congress has a right to address issues on behalf of the Nation within the confines of their enumerated powers. I don't see an enumerated power that allows defining rights.

"What rights of some group has the Judiciary "defined" which are at the expense of others?"

I already talked about the fact that minorities, as defined by law, are given points on qualifying tests above non minorities giving them a "leg-up" over others that would qualify otherwise at the same level or even higher.

dsolo802
04-12-2012, 08:47 PM
"If the rights exist, the Judiciary is duty bound under the Constitution to enforce them..."

I see absolutely no basis for that. You use my argument about principles to prove the assertion, but I don't see a principle in the Constitution to protect rights from any entity other than government. Thirteenth Amendment, and in particular Section 2.


I agree that congress has a right to address issues on behalf of the Nation within the confines of their enumerated powers. I don't see an enumerated power that allows defining rights. See my answer above.

"What rights of some group has the Judiciary "defined" which are at the expense of others?"


I already talked about the fact that minorities, as defined by law, are given points on qualifying tests above non minorities giving them a "leg-up" over others that would qualify otherwise at the same level or even higher.Eventually, I'll make good on all of my promises, including the one I have made about starting a separate three on affirmative action.

Stoney
04-13-2012, 05:30 AM
I still don't see it in the context of our discussion, but thank you for the discussion.

dsolo802
04-13-2012, 09:08 AM
I still don't see it in the context of our discussion, well for most of the conversation, I thought we were talking about the commerce clause. Just in the last little bit did I realize you are talking race and race relations. You don't see how the 13th Amendment, and legislation Congress was specifically authorized to pass pursuant to that Amendment's ends, relates to private racial discrimination and eliminating the last vestiges of it?

Stoney
04-13-2012, 07:29 PM
No, I wasn't talking about race or race relations.