posted
Yeah, I can see THAT getting through Congress.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Nutty as it is, it might inspire me to move to the US. Always wanted a country of my own This could make a lot of dictator-wannabees happy
-------------------- Me- Hi Jen! What's up! Jen- You again??!?! Listen kid, I'm not interested in you. Stop bothering me, I'm a lot older than you and I have a boyfriend. How did you find my ICQ number anyways? Me- Oh, so just cuz you're a movie star now, and you're new album made millions, you think you're too good for me? Jen- Yes!!! Get it thorough your head! I am a person, I am not Jennifer Lopez the hottest woman on earth that everyone wants to sleep with, I'm a person, leave me alone!!! Me- Fine! Be that way! Me- Jen.... Where'd you go.... I love you... please come back.... please....
Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
quote:Whereas SOMEONE would clearly like to see that criminals have MORE rights than the average citizen OR the government in place to protect those citizens. I can see where THAT thinking ends up... New Liberal Constitution Amendment #1 (of 784, because it's a 'LIVING' Document.)
Bullshit.
Criminals have the same access to the system that any other citizen has.
Simple isn't it.
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
quote:Um... no? The Constitution means exactly what it meant when it was written. If the Constitution changes on the whim of some renegade judge somewhere (NOT the "forum of public policy," as you so euphamisticly put it), then it's no Constitution at all, because it wasn't created by the people
Bullshit.
The Constitution contains phrases and clauses that are supposed to be interpreted and some that are letter for letter.
Hell, that why there was a Supreme Court put forth in the Constitution. So that interpretations could be decided.
Simple isn't it.
As far as the 'rights of criminals.' if I had the time, I'd go back through all the posts and pull out previous statements made by our two favorite fascists. Alas, time restricts my class projects.
[ July 07, 2001: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
I can just imagine the political mess caused by making every federal office a "ticket."
Excuse me, but its a waste of time. Either call an immediate special election so one can listen to policies presented by new candidates and votes can be cast accordingly or fill the vacancy via appointment till for the term until the next election.
This understudy idea is silly. Clearly, voting for two people (which is essentially what you call for) entails more than is needed save for POTUS. The POTUS is more important than the Representative from Yakima, Washington.
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
posted
Criminals have the same access to the system that any other citizen has.
Duh. But they DON'T have all the rights that everyone else has, which is a totally different concept, and the one we've been talking about. Otherwise, you couldn't punish them at all.
The Constitution contains phrases and clauses that are supposed to be interpreted and some that are letter for letter. Hell, that why there was a Supreme Court put forth in the Constitution. So that interpretations could be decided.
Upon what do you base this belief? 'Cause it ain't in the Federalist Papers no where, and they're the defining authority on the intent of the Constitution.
our two favorite fascists
As I understand facism, it's the system under which the government controls industry, while it nominally is still in private hands. This is opposed to socialism, where the government actually OWNS the industry, in addition to operating it. Facism sounds far more like something you'd support, Jay. Of course, it's become the catch-all political term for anything that someone doesn't like, as communism used to be. So since you're accusing us of being facists with no basis, can we accuse you of McCarthyism?
Excuse me, but its a waste of time.
How can it waste time? The Understudy doesn't even have to be seen. They have no duties.
quote:The Constitution contains phrases and clauses that are supposed to be interpreted and some that are letter for letter. Hell, that why there was a Supreme Court put forth in the Constitution. So that interpretations could be decided.
Upon what do you base this belief? 'Cause it ain't in the Federalist Papers no where, and they're the defining authority on the intent of the Constitution.
Since some people need help, a brief example of an interpretative phrases...
Article I Section 8:
quote:To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Ah, heck, you need more...
5th Amendment
quote:No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
One wonders how much of US Code is set out defining what all that means. The due process clause all by itself is the cause of how many Supreme Court decisions? Miranda anyone?
Or how about the "cruel and unusual punishments" clause of the 8th Amendment?
And this from the 14th Amendemnt:
quote:No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Privileges or immunities... Due process of law... Equal protection...
All these things are open to interpretation and definition by the Court.
The Court gets its authority from Article III. Section 1 of which reads:
quote:The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court...
Section 2 says:
quote:The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
The Constitution is the defining authority and makes it quite clear that the Supreme Court is the Constitutional arbiter.
So, if one wants to look the fool and go on saying that there is no interpretation of the United States Constitution, be my guest.
[ July 07, 2001: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Upon what do you base this belief? 'Cause it ain't in the Federalist Papers no where, and they're the defining authority on the intent of the Constitution.
That's the most ignorant statement I've ... well, actually, coming from Omega, it's not that bad..
How many of the Founding Fathers wrote the Federalist Papers, Omega? Besides James Madison. Because, the Founding Father's didn't all agree. They got in quite a few arguements about the Constitution. So holding the opinions of a few of the Founding Fathers above the opinions of the rest is a pretty silly effort. And, why the Federalist Papers? Why not the anti-Federalist Papers? C'mon, dude, use those two-brain cells ...
[ July 07, 2001: Message edited by: Jeff The Card ]
posted
Quicky-non-controversial-question: Why doesn't the US hold byelections when Congressmen die/resign, anyway?
-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Yeah, but isn't it a wee bit odd that the US Constitution, which talks about the procedure for when the President's cat eats the First Goldfish, doesn't just lay out a clear nation-wide and democratic procedure for this relatively common occurrence? I can't think of a major democracy aside from the US that doesn't hold byelections...
-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Well, when the thing was written, I think it tried to leave state-based stuff like that up to the individual states. And your First Goldfish reference really doesn't make a lot of sense, since it's such an hyperbole. :-)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
This could make a lot of dictator-wannabees happy
Printer-friendly view of this topic
