D.e.m.o.c.r.a.c.y (((((((((dicttor))))))))))

[j2k4]

Originally posted by ilw+30 December 2003 - 09:08--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (ilw &#064; 30 December 2003 - 09:08)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@30 December 2003 - 05:00
As for referendums, I say, YES&#33;

People deserve what they get, whether it is due to ignorance, apathy, or wrong-headed beliefs.

I don&#39;t really like that sentiment, I much prefer having someone in particular to blame. :-" But in many ways you don&#39;t actually get what you deserve, its like splitting a bill at a restaurant.[/b][/quote]
Just so, but I think what happened in California is a terrific example in illustration of my point:

The people (all of them) who cast votes in the recall will see the results of their having done so in relatively short order, and their motivations for rising from the old easy-chair to vote will be vindicated (or not).

There will actually be (for the first time in many of their lives) a recognizable cause and effect anent the vote cast.

I do think referendums have a place in the process these days.

Going back to Roe v. Wade, and continuing up to recent federal and state Supreme Court votes on gay marriage, sodomy, the Ten Commandments, etc., the courts have insisted on finding "rights" that don&#39;t exist in the constitution, and which no reading of the document, however loose, can reveal.

The courts have become a willing tool for lobbies which cannot achieve their ends through public referendum, and this will continue until the people decide to impeach these non-constructionist assholes.

State&#39;s Rights have taken a terrific hit in the last 40 years or so, and the people are becoming restless.

BTW-

If you vote ignorantly, and don&#39;t get what you want, you are indeed getting what you deserve.

[Sid Hartha]

Originally posted by Alex H+30 December 2003 - 04:17--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Alex H &#064; 30 December 2003 - 04:17)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Minor political parties are important. They stir up shit...[/b]

Agreed. I just wish the "minor third party" could be some right-wing nut job and siphon votes from the republicans for a change.

<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@30 December 2003 - 06:00
People deserve what they get, whether it is due to ignorance, apathy, or wrong-headed beliefs.
[/quote]
I remember saying that alot during the Reagan era. His "are you better off now than you were four years ago?" slogan - which was aimed at white, middle-class America - sealed his re-election. A very ugly period IMO.

[3RA1N1AC]

Originally posted by Alex H+29 December 2003 - 20:17--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Alex H @ 29 December 2003 - 20:17)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Sid Hartha@29 December 2003 - 22:48
a minor third party candidate ran mostly on the premise that there wasn&#39;t any appreciable difference between the two "established" candidates. This message apparently caught on, mostly with moderate/liberal voters. They voted for the third party candidate - not because they thought he had a chance, but as a symbolic "other" vote to protest the mediocrity of the other two candidates.

Result: Bad, bad president. Two wars, economy in the shitter... hated by most of the world.&nbsp; I sometimes wonder if anyone who voted for Ralph Nader still believes there was essentially no difference between Bush and Gore.

I was hardly his fault that Gore lost the election (what am I saying? He won&#33. [/b][/quote]
agreed. it is not ralph nader&#39;s fault that george w. bush is the president now. it&#39;s the fault of the bipartisan establishment, that they couldn&#39;t put up two candidates worth getting excited about. while GWB may have run this country off the rails, and al gore may not have ended up doing that if he had won... nader was perfectly accurate in claiming that bush and gore were both running on 110% status quo platforms. i don&#39;t think anybody could have predicted that bush&#39;s administration was going to turn out like this, based on his election campaign.

[Sid Hartha]

Originally posted by 3RA1N1AC@30 December 2003 - 16:15
i don&#39;t think anybody could have predicted that bush&#39;s administration was going to turn out like this, based on his election campaign.

I beg to differ. Bush/Cheney were way scary during the campaign. Anyone who panders to the religious right-wing is bad news, IMO.

Despite all his shortcomings, Gore didn&#39;t go there.

[3RA1N1AC]

Originally posted by j2k4@30 December 2003 - 07:32
Going back to Roe v. Wade, and continuing up to recent federal and state Supreme Court votes on gay marriage, sodomy, the Ten Commandments, etc., the courts have insisted on finding "rights" that don&#39;t exist in the constitution, and which no reading of the document, however loose, can reveal.

whoa, hold up a sec. the Constitution is not a prescription for limits on individual rights. it&#39;s not the end of an individual&#39;s rights, it&#39;s the beginning.

if by mentioning the Ten Commandments, you&#39;re referring to that judge from Alabama who erected a religious monument in the middle of his court house, he appealed to the Supreme Court. he wants to take the case to Supreme Court, but the court refuses to hear the appeal-- that is not a vote or a verdict on the issue, it&#39;s... well... a refusal to hear the appeal. &#39;course, there are prolly plenty of other "Ten Commandments" cases, so maybe you&#39;re referring to sumfin&#39; else.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by 3RA1N1AC+30 December 2003 - 12:37--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (3RA1N1AC &#064; 30 December 2003 - 12:37)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@30 December 2003 - 07:32
Going back to Roe v. Wade, and continuing up to recent federal and state Supreme Court votes on gay marriage, sodomy, the Ten Commandments, etc., the courts have insisted on finding "rights" that don&#39;t exist in the constitution, and which no reading of the document, however loose, can reveal.

whoa, hold up a sec. the Constitution is not a prescription for limits on individual rights. it&#39;s not the end of an individual&#39;s rights, it&#39;s the beginning.

if by mentioning the Ten Commandments, you&#39;re referring to that judge from Alabama who erected a religious monument in the middle of his court house, he appealed to the Supreme Court. he wants to take the case to Supreme Court, but the court refuses to hear the appeal-- that is not a vote or a verdict on the issue, it&#39;s... well... a refusal to hear the appeal. &#39;course, there are prolly plenty of other "Ten Commandments" cases, so maybe you&#39;re referring to sumfin&#39; else. [/b][/quote]
Let&#39;s get this VERY straight, 3RA1N1AC-

The Constitution is neither the beginning nor the end of individual rights&#33;

It is merely a document enumerating what rights accrue to individuals, and which are the province of the state or federal government.

It is not a document to be modified on the whim of a minority group or lobby; it is not oriented to "niche" case law.

Neither is there any provision for the separation of Church and State as per the current "mis-understanding" of the document.

The theory of separation was developed by Jefferson, but is not, and never has been, a part of the Constitution.

The Constitution provides for equal recogniton of different religions, not the abolition of public (and now, private) displays of religious observation, be they Christian or otherwise.

The federal Court is usurping the authority of State Courts, and State Courts are doing the same to state legislatures, who are in turn doing it to the people.

If you can&#39;t be bothered to read and understand the document, don&#39;t bother to expound on it, and don&#39;t assume what you read elsewhere constitutes the whole story.

[3RA1N1AC]

i think you went off-topic somewhere after the word "niche."

edit: you&#39;ve brought up a whole other thread that has little or nothing to do with my post-- i said that, if you&#39;re referring to that judge from Alabama, Supreme Court didn&#39;t hear that case. if you weren&#39;t referring to that case, then my mistake. i didn&#39;t mean to provoke a whole gasket-blown rant about how much of a moron you think i am, because of a previous thread.

back to the bit that was actually on-topic. okay, it&#39;s the beginning of the enumeration of individual freedoms. although i would say that without a formal contract between the citizens and their government, these freedoms are not a given. it&#39;s the legal starting point for individual rights in America.

my intention is not to have a contest to see who&#39;s got a superior intellect based on their adherence to technical clarity. my intention is to get at the essence of the argument, and the essence of yours appears to be:
1) the Supreme Court has no authority to find rights that are not listed in the Constitution, especially not rights for minorities
2) you understand the Constitution and are qualified to speak about it, while i, all the other illiterate philistines, and the Supreme Court are not
3) minorities are bad and they want to twist the Constitution to validate their perversion

is it "merely" a basic enumeration of individual rights, or is it the final word to which you refer minorities and tell them "well, that freedom isn&#39;t listed in the Constitution, so you don&#39;t receive it"?

[j2k4]

Originally posted by 3RA1N1AC@30 December 2003 - 14:48
i think you went off-topic somewhere after the word "niche."

If you say so.

Read the document; until then, keep your powder dry.

[3RA1N1AC]

Originally posted by j2k4+30 December 2003 - 11:37--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 &#064; 30 December 2003 - 11:37)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-3RA1N1AC@30 December 2003 - 14:48
i think you went off-topic somewhere after the word "niche."

If you say so.

Read the document; until then, keep your powder dry. [/b][/quote]
awright, i&#39;ve read it straight through for the fourth time. it had been a little while since i&#39;d read it, actually. my major concentration of study was english & american literature, not american law.

does that put to rest any doubt in your mind that i&#39;ve read & understood it at least once? i still don&#39;t find your view of it any more correct than that of the Supreme Court, though, incredible as that might sound.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by 3RA1N1AC+30 December 2003 - 16:42--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (3RA1N1AC &#064; 30 December 2003 - 16:42)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by j2k4@30 December 2003 - 11:37
<!--QuoteBegin-3RA1N1AC

@30 December 2003 - 14:48
i think you went off-topic somewhere after the word "niche."

If you say so.

Read the document; until then, keep your powder dry.

awright, i&#39;ve read it straight through for the fourth time. it had been a little while since i&#39;d read it, actually. my major concentration of study was english & american literature, not american law.

does that put to rest any doubt in your mind that i&#39;ve read & understood it at least once? i still don&#39;t find your view of it any more correct than that of the Supreme Court, though, incredible as that might sound.[/b][/quote]
I take it you are not at all sold on the idea of original intent, then?

Is this urge to be, as they say, "progressive" so overpowering that one cannot look upon a document such as the American Constitution (a document which, in times fairly recent, has been called, "nearly perfect") without being beset by the urge to be (re-) creative?

Amendments, while never lightly contemplated, are now deemed insufficient to address current issues; the method du jour is to "read between the lines" of the World&#39;s most perfect document in order to accomodate the lobby of the moment.

I am not a strict constructionist; however, the Supreme Court is not possessed of Picasso&#39;s ability.

They are making a mockery of our Constitution.

I thank you for reading it, anyway.