VisorCentral.com - Inane ramblings

VisorCentral.com >> Discussion >> Other Areas of Interest >> Off Topic
Inane ramblings


	Post a New Thread \| Post A Reply

Pages (73): « First ... « 30 31 32 33 34 [35] 36 37 38 39 40 » ... Last »

Last Thread Next Thread

Author

Topic: Inane ramblings Pages (73): « First ... « 30 31 32 33 34 [35] 36 37 38 39 40 » ... Last »

Toby
Member

Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 3034

quote:
Originally posted by dick-richardson
I did not say or imply that the constitution was unquestionable. Hence my comment regarding infallibility. I said the constitution needed to be black and white, or at least interpreted as such, if it is going to be useful as the basis for gov't. Either we have the right to bear arms or we don't. Regarding Yorick's comment, judicial interpretation is merely the process by which the constitution's intentions are set out in black and white in a case by case manner.

Except that the founders didn't believe those rights to have _anything_ necessarily to do with the Constitution. They were considered above it. The only reason the Bill Of Rights was included was to appease the anti-Federalists who feared that the new government would wind up being the same as the monarchies from which they separated. AAMOF, Hamilton didn't think it was a good idea to include them because he figured that if they were included, it might later lead to the government thinking that they could restrict them by interpretation, e.g. restricting freedom of the press by 'interpreting' who was or wasn't 'the press'. Much as I disagree with him on some things, he turned out to be eerily prophetic on that count. The compromises on that front were to add the 9th and 10th amendments trying to say that just because the Constitution didn't enumerate the rights didn't mean that the people didn't have them, and that if the Constitution didn't say the Feds could do it, it was supposed to be up to the states or the people. Unfortunately, a sheep-like public has allowed GovCo to exploit the Elastic Clause time and time again.

01-28-2002 09:19 PM

dick-richardson
Member

Registered: Oct 2000
Location: Aberdeen, SD
Posts: 2531

quote:
Originally posted by Toby
Except that the founders didn't believe those rights to have _anything_ necessarily to do with the Constitution...

This is beside the point, though I concur entirely. I was speaking to the foundation of the gov't, not to the foundation of my rights as a citizen of that gov't. Forgive the confusion.

__________________
-Joshua
Abortion: Darwinism at its finest.

Last edited by dick-richardson on 01-28-2002 at 09:32 PM

01-28-2002 09:26 PM

septimus
VisorCentral Staff

Registered: Feb 2001
Location: Them Twin Cities
Posts: 1758

Really, though, can we use the ideals of the founders as a basis for judicial review? As we get further and further away from the revolution, their writings speak less and less to our present situation. the religion joke is apt here--There's a wide range of thought as to what they actually thought and an even wider range of thought as to how they would have reacted to modern times. It's just not sufficient to be a standard.

__________________
Don't like somebody? Click "Profile" on a post and then click "Ignore "so and so's" posts". Voila!

01-28-2002 10:10 PM

dick-richardson
Member

Registered: Oct 2000
Location: Aberdeen, SD
Posts: 2531

quote:
Originally posted by dietrichbohn
t's just not sufficient to be a standard.

It may well be, considering how well documented they are.

__________________
-Joshua
Abortion: Darwinism at its finest.

01-29-2002 12:39 AM

septimus
VisorCentral Staff

Registered: Feb 2001
Location: Them Twin Cities
Posts: 1758

quote:
Originally posted by dick-richardson
It may well be, considering how well documented they are.

yeah, I thought of that. But given the multiplicity of sources and the difficulty of interpreting them for today... it just feels like interpreting the apocrypha of the founding fathers is more like interpreting the apocrypha proper than a sound basis for judicial review...

__________________
Don't like somebody? Click "Profile" on a post and then click "Ignore "so and so's" posts". Voila!

01-29-2002 02:52 PM

Toby
Member

Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 3034

quote:
Originally posted by dick-richardson
This is beside the point, though I concur entirely. I was speaking to the foundation of the gov't, not to the foundation of my rights as a citizen of that gov't. Forgive the confusion.

Yes, this is confusing. Your rights have nothing to do with being a citizen of the US government. You have them simply because you're here. That's part of the foundation of the government.

01-29-2002 03:13 PM

Toby
Member

Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 3034

quote:
Originally posted by dietrichbohn
yeah, I thought of that. But given the multiplicity of sources and the difficulty of interpreting them for today... it just feels like interpreting the apocrypha of the founding fathers is more like interpreting the apocrypha proper than a sound basis for judicial review...

Bah...we're not talking about ancient Sanskrit or Egyptian heiroglyphics from thousands of years ago. We're talking about works written in English only a couple hundred years ago. Dammit, I've already admitted that Hamilton was right about something once today. Don't make me repeat myself. I wonder if the French socialists get into these sorts of debates.

01-29-2002 03:19 PM

septimus
VisorCentral Staff

Registered: Feb 2001
Location: Them Twin Cities
Posts: 1758

quote:
Originally posted by Toby
Bah...we're not talking about ancient Sanskrit or Egyptian heiroglyphics from thousands of years ago. We're talking about works written in English only a couple hundred years ago.

right, before nukes, planes, instant communication, acceptable atheism, and, er, assault rifles.

quote:
Dammit, I've already admitted that Hamilton was right about something once today. Don't make me repeat myself. I wonder if the French socialists get into these sorts of debates.

Nah, they're too busy fending off American Pop Culture to pay attention right now..

__________________
Don't like somebody? Click "Profile" on a post and then click "Ignore "so and so's" posts". Voila!

01-29-2002 03:27 PM

Toby
Member

Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 3034

quote:
Originally posted by dietrichbohn
[...] right, before nukes, planes, instant communication, acceptable atheism, and, er, assault rifles. [...]

Bah...those are just extensions of things that were already around. Hell, one of the founders edited his own Bible because he thought all that miraculous stuff was a crock, so don't tell me that atheism wasn't acceptable. And if they wanted to destroy your town, they'd just burn the thing to the ground. They didn't need nukes. Feh...spare me from the culture which addresses the symptoms and not the disease. Now there's a topic: Should cigarettes be banned since their only purpose is to kill?

01-29-2002 03:37 PM

BobbyMike
Member

Registered: Dec 1999
Location: "Children are a gift from God, they are a reward"
Posts: 1049

"right, before nukes, planes, instant communication, acceptable atheism, and, er, assault rifles. "

Are you saying that none of the framers of the Constitution thought that progress would bring about societal change?
IMHO most of the dross that has been added, since then, to what they wrote merely absolves individuals of the responsibilities that come with being an American citizen.

A good example of this is the blame put on the "Banks" for the Great Depression. What about the millions of investors that tried to get rich quick, and the hundreds of thousands of farmers who borrowed too much money because they were offered low rates?

"...acceptable atheism..."

After what they did to Madelyn Murray O'Hare (sic), is it still acceptable to be a card carrying atheist, or we in a "Don't ask, don't tell" phase?

__________________
"I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."

01-29-2002 03:43 PM

septimus
VisorCentral Staff

Registered: Feb 2001
Location: Them Twin Cities
Posts: 1758

YAHH! I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.

...Atheism wasn't acceptable, they had to call themselves "Deists." it was basically the same thing..

Atheism today is more accepted, but still a problem...

...The culture has changed in a significant way since the founding--communication and culture. TV, Radio, Internet, Britney Spears, Fox News, and on and on.

__________________
Don't like somebody? Click "Profile" on a post and then click "Ignore "so and so's" posts". Voila!

01-29-2002 03:51 PM

BobbyMike
Member

Registered: Dec 1999
Location: "Children are a gift from God, they are a reward"
Posts: 1049

"YAHH! I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.
...Atheism wasn't acceptable, they had to call themselves "Deists." it was basically the same thing..

Atheism today is more accepted, but still a problem...

...The culture has changed in a significant way since the founding--communication and culture. TV, Radio, Internet, Britney Spears, Fox News, and on and on."

But that's all surface stuff, none of it will be the same in 50 years (not even Britney Spears), the Constitution the way it was written addresses the same idealogical and moral needs as it did then. IMHO

Go back to work

__________________
"I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."

01-29-2002 03:55 PM

septimus
VisorCentral Staff

Registered: Feb 2001
Location: Them Twin Cities
Posts: 1758

quote:
Originally posted by BobbyMike
But that's all surface stuff, none of it will be the same in 50 years (not even Britney Spears), the Constitution the way it was written addresses the same idealogical and moral needs as it did then. IMHO

The communication and the rise of mass culture are not surface changes. They're a result of a massive shift in national thought and culture.

quote:
Go back to work

Work is reading The Republic's arguments that all literature except works praising heroic men should be banned. i can only take so much of it at a time.

__________________
Don't like somebody? Click "Profile" on a post and then click "Ignore "so and so's" posts". Voila!

01-29-2002 04:27 PM

linguas
Member

Registered: Jun 2000
Location: South Lake, FL
Posts: 103

quote:
Originally posted by Toby
Should cigarettes be banned since their only purpose is to kill?

*sigh* bah! For this weak analogy to hold, cigarette smokers would have to be buying the cigarettes just as a "deterent" to health or, on the other hand, gun lovers would be shooting continuously at everyone around them in the excersise of their "rights." *shrug*

edited to add dismissive *sigh*, *shrug*, etc. and to note what a waste of my valuable time this is.

__________________
Eschew obfuscation!

01-30-2002 11:51 AM

Toby
Member

Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 3034

quote:
Originally posted by linguas
*sigh* bah! For this weak analogy to hold,

*sigh* Actually, *sigh* it *sigh* wasn't * sigh* an analogy *sigh*. bah! It was bah! this strange bah! new invention bah! called 'a joke' bah!. *shrug* They're *shrug* supposed to be *shrug* deliberate *shrug* stretches of reality *shrug* designed to *shrug* evoke a *shrug* pleasant feeling *shrug* and sometimes *shrug* laughter.

quote:
cigarette smokers would have to be buying the cigarettes just as a "deterent" to health

If you listen to the anti-smoking crowd, I'd bet that claim would be made. Some might even say that they do it as a deterrent to others' health as well.

quote:
or, on the other hand, gun lovers would be shooting continuously at everyone around them in the excersise of their "rights." *shrug*

Well, who knows what they might start doing if we try to ban them.

quote:
edited to add dismissive *sigh*, *shrug*, etc. and to note what a waste of my valuable time this is.

*shrug* bah! Send the bill to Josh. *sigh*

no editing...all of the *sigh*s and *shrug*s and/or dismissives placed before posting

01-30-2002 12:38 PM

Toby
Member

Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 3034

quote:
Originally posted by dietrichbohn
The communication and the rise of mass culture are not surface changes. They're a result of a massive shift in national thought and culture.

Keep in mind that I don't think there's been much of a shift in national thought and culture. The guys who did the Revolution were a relatively small part of society. Much like today, the majority of the population didn't want to rock the boat or question anything. Why do you think they chose a representative republic? They didn't want the average Joe who didn't have a clue screwing things up. Hmmm...direct democracy: pros and cons...discuss amongst yerselves. I'll start. Citizenship tests: why shouldn't natural born citizens have to take them like immigrant applicants do before they can vote?*
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
* Yes, I know the legal reasons. It's humor, son! Were you born without a funny bone?

01-30-2002 12:49 PM

septimus
VisorCentral Staff

Registered: Feb 2001
Location: Them Twin Cities
Posts: 1758

quote:
Originally posted by Toby
Citizenship tests: why shouldn't natural born citizens have to take them like immigrant applicants do before they can vote?

GED=Citizenship? Local control, allows for differences between different American cultural centers, goddamn it's a good idea. I hereby declare it to be so. Miradu, you are not a citizen yet.

quote:
* Yes, I know the legal reasons. It's humor, son! Were you born without a funny bone?

legal, Smeagol. Gollum can nitpick over the legalities (as dubya would call them), I wanna boot 15 year olds out of the country!

__________________
Don't like somebody? Click "Profile" on a post and then click "Ignore "so and so's" posts". Voila!

01-30-2002 01:38 PM

septimus
VisorCentral Staff

Registered: Feb 2001
Location: Them Twin Cities
Posts: 1758

All right, time for some good old dubya bashing. What'dya think of the State of the Union. the guy goes into it with the highest approval ratings ever, capitalizes on it by getting a barb or two on the Dems ("But when those checks arrived in the mail most
Americans thought tax relief was just about right."), calling for more volunteerism, and the guy got a standing ovation for saying the word defecit!.

Any, so things are fine, right... but what possessed him to say this?

quote:
Some of these regimes have been pretty quiet since September 11. But we know their true nature. North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens.

Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hope for freedom.

Well goddamn right, but maybe it doesn't go in the SoTU. We've just managed to get these two countries' propaganda machines to start winding down on anti-US rhetoric and gotten their citizens to start feeling some sympathy for us (especially in Iran, where even the gov't had been relaxing a bit from it's Theocratic craziness). Doesn't using the phrase "axis of evil" threaten this?

No, really, I want to know. I don't care if you like the elf-looking-non-Enron-mentioning-oil-guzzling-tax-cutting-defecit-spending guy

, I want to know if you think that the pumping up we get from such phrases is worth their diplomatic toll, or if it's short-sighted jingoism.

...and I have a guess as to what everybody's answer is already, so I guess what I'm really looking for is to be surprised.

__________________
Don't like somebody? Click "Profile" on a post and then click "Ignore "so and so's" posts". Voila!

01-30-2002 01:56 PM

Toby
Member

Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 3034

quote:
Originally posted by dietrichbohn
All right, time for some good old dubya bashing.

Bah! Partisan horse puckey.

quote:
What'dya think of the State of the Union.

It was bull****. Just like Clinton's States of the Unions, and elder Bush's before his, and Reagan's before his... and so on and so on...

quote:
the guy goes into it with the highest approval ratings ever, capitalizes on it by getting a barb or two on the Dems ("But when those checks arrived in the mail most Americans thought tax relief was just about right."),

Feh! Be fair. That wasn't a barb against the Dems. He used the 3 bears analogy to make a barb against both the extremes. "This 'tax cut' was too big. This 'tax cut' was too small. This 'tax cut' is just right."

quote:
calling for more volunteerism,

If you're 'encouraged' to do it, is it really 'volunteerism'?

quote:
and the guy got a standing ovation for saying the word defecit!.

He could have babbled gibberish and he'd have gotten a standing ovation. Don't blame him for that. He's got an 80-something percent approval rating. Nobody wants to get Hillary-ed and get caught on camera laughing snidely at something he says. She did that, and got booed on stage at the September 11th benefit.

quote:
Any, so things are fine, right... but what possessed him to say this? [...]

He had to pick on someone else besides Iraq. Iran is the anti-Iraq in some senses, and they were the ones suspected behind that Palestinian arms shipment. North Korea was picked because they didn't want to give the impression of only picking on Muslims probably.

01-30-2002 02:26 PM