Main Menu

Constitutional fundamentalism

I was listening to a piece on NPR this afternoon, Tea Party: It’s Not Just Taxes, It’s The Constitution, talking about the enthusiasm that Tea Party members have for the US Constitution and I was struck by their comment that many Tea Party members carry a copy of the Constitution around with them.

Karen Cole says she carries a copy in her purse. “The Democrats are eviscerating our Constitution,” she says. Her friend Betty Anne Olsen agrees. “This current administration is trashing our Constitution; they couldn’t care less about the values. They’re breaking the laws.”

It reminded me of my college days when some Christian students (they called them “Jesus freaks” back then) carried leather-bound copies of the Bible around with them. Now there’s nothing wrong with carrying a Bible or the Constitution; I have a copyΒ  of both on my iPhone, but there other parallels that are troublesome and I list some of them here:

  1. Attributing to the Constitution absolute moral authority and attributing infallibility to the Framers. They idealize the past.
  2. An attempt to reclaim the past by going back to the Constitution, devoid of the historical baggage of interpretation.
  3. Using the Constitution as a bastion against any kind of change.
  4. Reading the Constitution literally, devoid of historical/political/legal context, denying the possibility of any difference in interpretation.
  5. Reading individual words and short phrases out of the larger context of the document.
  6. The Constitution is used as a rallying point against perceived enemies.
  7. They justify their prejudices by the Constitution even if they don’t really know what the Constitution actually says (or doesn’t say) on the subject.Β  (The birther claim that the Constitution clearly states that the President must have 2 citizen parents, is a great example.)
  8. They deny that the Constitution is a “living document” that has the possibility of adapting to changing conditions through novel application by the courts.
  9. They believe that the Constitution excludes viewpoints held by others, even to the point of calling those with other views “traitors” (“heretics” is the analogous religious term).
  10. They use the Constitution as a talisman, carrying conspicuously copies, either booklet or facsimile.

NPR said:

Tea Party members are often vague about exactly how their constitutional rights are being denied. But they all believe the federal government has expanded far beyond what the Constitution intended.

In that regard, I think Christian fundamentalists have a much better handle on exactly what they believe is wrong.

206 Responses to Constitutional fundamentalism

  1. avatar
    misha July 14, 2010 at 9:50 pm #

    Don’t forget John Anderson: In his second term as a Congressman, Anderson introduced a constitutional amendment that would “recognize the law and authority of Jesus Christ” over the United States.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_amendment

    This says it best:
    http://www.theonion.com/articles/area-man-passionate-defender-of-what-he-imagines-c,2849/

  2. avatar
    misha July 14, 2010 at 9:55 pm #

    When I was in college, some students walked around with buttons “Jesus is the answer.”

    In the middle of a lecture, the professor walked up to a student with that button and said, “what’s the question?”

    Another time, one student started talking about heaven. The professor, a priest, said to her “how do you know heaven exists? Did you ever get a postcard?” That poor girl was in tears.

  3. avatar
    Black Lion July 14, 2010 at 10:10 pm #

    More humor for the Post and Fail….This time from old friend Linda Starr….

    “Charles Manson, cult leader and convicted serial killer of the 1960’s, used to preach race war and tried to incite it…Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s politics of the “Twelfth Imam” require CREATING mass bloodshed to usher in the β€˜Mahdi’, the ultimate savior of mankind…and now the Faux First Lady who is the total antithesis of Laura Bush: Michelle Obama Rouses NAACP Before Vote Condemning Racist’ Elements of Tea Party

    The Tea Party represents Americans who want to return to the principles of our Constitution and of our Founding Fathers. By relentlessly insisting, against all evidence, that we are racist can only imply that the NAACP and their supporters intend on pressing for a race war as a way of achieving their political goals. Shame on them. And shame on Michelle Obama using her position to facilitate this kind of division in our country.

    Or are they just playing the game of race “chicken” with us, hoping that we’ll just give in to their agenda and abandon the U.S. Constitution as “reparations” for all of our sins?

    Do their ends really justify their means?

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/07/14/20183/

    “The NAACP has passed a resolution condemning racism in the Tea Party movement.

    The resolution was approved in a vote by more than 2,000 delegates at the annual convention of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People in Kansas City.

    Versions of the resolution condemned “explicitly racist behavior” in the Tea Party movement and called on people to “repudiate” what it described as racist elements of the Tea Party. The final text of the resolution has not yet been made available, however, and that language may have changed.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20010467-503544.html

  4. avatar
    Mary Brown July 14, 2010 at 11:43 pm #

    Please do not make the error of thinking that all the folks involved in this lack intelligence. I have recently found that people I respect and are quite intelligent are buying into this. I assume they failed to speak to me about it because my views are known, I have also been reading the book “Bonhoeffer” by Eric Metaxas. Many intelligent Germans embraced an evil philosophy in a time of stress and national fear. Please understand, I am not equating anyone with the Nazis but only the tendency to abandon principle under threats real or perceived. Misha, I think you tend to characterize these folks as naive or out of touch. The folks I know are not. And that my friend, really concerns me. None of this lessons my faith in Christ just in some Christians.

  5. avatar
    Black Lion July 15, 2010 at 1:21 am #

    Interesting response from the tea bagger crowd…Of course the movement has nothing to do with race….

    http://blog.reidreport.com/2010/07/tea-partier-mark-williams-writes-open-letter-to-lincoln-from-the-coloreds/#more-15246

    If you’re feeling pissy that the NAACP condemned your witch doctor signage and you’re out to prove that your movement isn’t racist, wouldn’t it help not to actually say anything that might be construed as racist?
    Mark Williams, right wing talk show host, CNN favorite and “organizer” of the corporate-backed Tea Party Express, was all over the airwaves Wednesday, defending “the movement” against the NAACP’s condemnation. I guess Sarah Palin’s linguistic stylings and Michael Steele’s pitifully toned down tweets weren’t enough to get the point across, so Williams was meant to be the closer.

    But Williams has a strange way of proving he and his movement aren’t racist…

    WILLIAMS: You’re dealing with people who are professional race baiters, who make a very good living off this kind of thing. They make more money off of race than any slave trader ever. It’s time groups like the NAACP went to the trash heap of history where they belong with all the other vile racist groups that emerged in our history.

    But Williams was just getting started. Also Wednesday, he took his “non-racist” commentary to the next level, penning his version of an “open letter” to Abe Lincoln … from the “colored people…” in which he accuses black people, or sorry “coloreds,” of not wanting to work, of “striving for welfare,” and wanting to buy “flat screen TVs” with white people’s stolen money. Seriously. It’s an apparent attempt at satire, I suppose, but which aligns perfectly with the views of the tea party movement, which is by and large a mash-up of Libertarians who want to get rid of Social Security, disappointed Palin cultists and old geezer racists who believe Obama only got himself elected so he can steal all the white people’s money and hand it out in the hood.

    Williams has a lot of experience being the classy face and voice of the tea party movement. Just in the last six months, his group has been the “brains” behind the nutbag Sharron Angle campaign …

    And Williams, who not surprisingly is also a right wing talk jock, has distinguished himself in many ways…

    Calling President Obama an “Indonesian Muslim turned welfare thug and a racist in chief”:

    http://mediamatters.org/blog/200911200047

    Tea Party leader and regular CNN, Fox News guest Mark Williams repeatedly calls opponents “faggot”

    As we’ve noted, the Tea Party Express spokesman has also called President Obama and Jimmy Carter “Nazis,” and referred to Obama as the “racist in chief.” Williams is a birther who has forwarded claims that Obama was born in Kenya.

  6. avatar
    Keith July 15, 2010 at 1:23 am #

    I once stooped to entering a ‘debate’ with a Redemptionist. He claimed to be a “Sovereign citizen” of one of the States, but NOT a citizen of the United States.

    The person was making one wrong statement after another about what the Constitution said. Each time I simply refuted him by cutting and pasting the appropriate text from the Constitution.

    He(she) said that the only law we needed was the Constitution, I replied that the founders didn’t think so or they wouldn’t have defined the Legislative branch in the Constitution; he/she went on and on about how the 14th amendment was unconstitutional, I pointed out that part of the Constitution can not be unconstitutional; he/she claimed that Congress passed amendments and of course they are unconstitutional if they go against the original provisions of the Constitution, I pointed out that Congress proposes amendments and States ratify them, the same States that he claims to be a citizen of, so it was ratified by him(her).

    Finally he/she said (approximately): Do you know that the founders never intended that the Federal Government not have a central seat or specified boundaries, that it is just a collection of independent States with no authority to do anything. “And do you realize that the Washington D.C. was only established in 1871? Think about that!”

    I pointed out the clause in Article I Section 8 that reads:

    To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;

    I suggested that he think about this: The Constitution was completed in 1787, formally ratified by 1788 and the Government began operation in 1789. The location of the ‘federal city’ was chosen in 1790, the City of Washington was named in 1791. Congress held its first session in Washington in 1780. If the authors never meant there to be a capital city as the seat of government why did those self same authors go to so much trouble establishing the seat of government?

    I added that before the Organic act of 1871, District of Columbia and the City of Washington (and Georgetown and Alexandria) were administered as separate entities. In 1871 Congress combined them all into the District of Columbia, and The City of Washington officially and legally ceased to exist. Washington D.C. is just a nickname, like ‘the big Apple’ or ‘the Windy City’.

    He retorted “If you are going to continue to insult me like that I am not going to publish my in-depth analysis of ” and I don’t believe that poster has surfaced since, but I could be wrong, its a big site.

  7. avatar
    Lupin July 15, 2010 at 1:38 am #

    Liars, hypocrites and fools, all of them.

    Point me to ONE who objected to Buxh/Cheney’s egregious grab for executive power and general ignorance of the Constitution and I’ll listen.

  8. avatar
    misha July 15, 2010 at 1:45 am #

    Lupin: Liars, hypocrites and fools, all of them.Point me to ONE who objected to Buxh/Cheney’s egregious grab for executive power and general ignorance of the Constitution and I’ll listen.

    Not a peep from that crowd. But Obama is a communist, who is taking our freedom away.

    As I wrote before, I personally know someone of Arabic descent, who was convicted when the Constitution was ignored on two types of “evidence.” Arab and Muslim – a subversive for sure. Don’t let the Constitution get in the way of a conviction.

  9. avatar
    Jules July 15, 2010 at 4:17 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: They believe that the Constitution excludes viewpoints held by others, even to the point of calling those with other views “traitors” (“heretics” is the analogous religious term).

    Of course, someone who bothers reading Article III of the Constitution knows that treason is not only difficult to prove, but also given a very narrow definition:

    Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

  10. avatar
    Jules July 15, 2010 at 4:55 am #

    Keith: I once stooped to entering a debate’ with a Redemptionist.

    There is a small but similar movement in the UK of people who believe that the law of the land of England and Wales consists only of common law and that statutory law only applies to commercial arrangements in which consent to the statute is given. A video has been put online of one of these nutters disrupting Magistrates’ Court proceedings that had been brought against an individual for failure to pay Council Tax. Amusingly, he seems to think that the birth certificate of the defendant magically forces the court to regard the defendant as present and the “lay advisor” holding the certificate as having standing to represent him.

  11. avatar
    AnotherBird July 15, 2010 at 5:27 am #

    misha:
    … Don’t let the Constitution get in the way of a conviction.

    Was that a typo? Or, was something different was meant by the comment?

  12. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 15, 2010 at 8:17 am #

    Mary Brown: Please do not make the error of thinking that all the folks involved in this lack intelligence. I have recently found that people I respect and are quite intelligent are buying into this.

    I share your experience, and I might add “not racists” to that. The reason that otherwise normal people hold such fantastical views eludes me and that is why I write so much on the topic, in an attempt to understand it better.

    I’m working on another article titled: Birther sideshow, that will focus on the gullibility of birthers. Here too I must keep in mind what you say.

  13. avatar
    kimba July 15, 2010 at 8:33 am #

    “misha 14. Jul, 2010 at 9:55 pm misha(Quote) #
    When I was in college, some students walked around with buttons “Jesus is the answer.”

    In the middle of a lecture, the professor walked up to a student with that button and said, “what’s the question?”

    Another time, one student started talking about heaven. The professor, a priest, said to her “how do you know heaven exists? Did you ever get a postcard?” That poor girl was in tears.”

    Those crazy Jesuits! Always stirring stuff up!

  14. avatar
    Sef July 15, 2010 at 9:59 am #

    Jules: A video has been put online of one of these nutters disrupting Magistrates’ Court proceedings that had been brought against an individual for failure to pay Council Tax

    That video & its comments are just too much. So the U.K. has its own “Fitzy”. The comment about the 2 6/7% were truly amazing. I thought that innumeracy was only taught in American schools, but apparently it has leaked back across the pond.

  15. avatar
    thisoldhippie July 15, 2010 at 10:00 am #

    My husband is a liberal Democrat, although with not as many socialist tendencies as I, LOL, and he also has a pocket Constitution that he carries around. However, he also carries a book by Gore Vidal that offers many quotes of the founding fathers – especially Thomas Jefferson – in which they state that they knew the Constitution to be flawed and that Jefferson hoped that every generation of educated and enlightened citizens, who were evolved and learned, would revisit the constitution and make necessary changes accordingly. Needless to say, when his co-workers begin to spout the absolute BS they hear from Fox News and the right wing pundits, he immediately points them to the correct information and is able to cite references. Their usual response? “I just don’t believe that.”

  16. avatar
    Majority Will July 15, 2010 at 10:00 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I share your experience, and I might add “not racists” to that. The reason that otherwise normal people hold such fantastical views eludes me and that is why I write so much on the topic, in an attempt to understand it better.I’m working on another article titled: Birther sideshow, that will focus on the gullibility of birthers. Here too I must keep in mind what you say.

    There are presumably intelligent people who still regularly fall for old and new internet scams. I believe the motivation is greed.

  17. avatar
    yguy July 15, 2010 at 10:11 am #

    They deny that the Constitution is a “living document” that has the possibility of adapting to changing conditions through novel application by the courts.

    And well they should, since the idea of a document being alive is a transparent sophism employed to camouflage the de facto commandeering of the amendment process by the courts.

  18. avatar
    Majority Will July 15, 2010 at 10:21 am #

    Speaking of transparent sophism . . .

  19. avatar
    yguy July 15, 2010 at 10:21 am #

    Lupin: Liars, hypocrites and fools, all of them.Point me to ONE who objected to Buxh/Cheney’s egregious grab for executive power and general ignorance of the Constitution and I’ll listen.

    Experience suggests you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about, but you are welcome to elaborate all the same. Before you do, however, you might want to consider why Lincoln’s suspension of the Great Writ during the Civil War did or did not constitute a far more egregious power grab, and whether you are prepared to defend the proposition that the Constitution is indeed a suicide pact.

  20. avatar
    JoZeppy July 15, 2010 at 10:27 am #

    yguy: And well they should, since the idea of a document being alive is a transparent sophism employed to camouflage the de facto commandeering of the amendment process by the courts.

    Or perhaps a realization that basic attitudes change. Did we really need a Constitutional amendment to strike segregation? Did we need a constitutional Amendment to strike down state anti-miscegenation laws? Did we need a constitutional amendment permitting married couples to purchase birth control? Attitudes change. The Constitution isn’t a set of laws that covers every possible event in the interation of people. It is a broad document written in vague language, that was the product of a series of compromises. It is not a holy script, handed down by God, or the product of idealist, trying to write a perfect document….and considering textual originalism is a legal interpretive philosophy that is only around 30 years old, how do you think the courts had treated the document for the other near 200 years?

  21. avatar
    Majority Will July 15, 2010 at 10:31 am #

    JoZeppy:
    Or perhaps a realization that basic attitudes change.Did we really need a Constitutional amendment to strike segregation?Did we need a constitutional Amendment to strike down state anti-miscegenation laws?Did we need a constitutional amendment permitting married couples to purchase birth control?Attitudes change.The Constitution isn’t a set of laws that covers every possible event in the interation of people.It is a broad document written in vague language, that was the product of a series of compromises.It is not a holy script, handed down by God, or the product of idealist, trying to write a perfect document….and considering textual originalism is a legal interpretive philosophy that is only around 30 years old, how do you think the courts had treated the document for the other near 200 years?

    Well said. Some day we may need an amendment to prohibit discrimination against human clones and sentient robots.

  22. avatar
    HORUS July 15, 2010 at 10:42 am #

    Another line these people like to throw out is Socialism is proven to be a failed policy because Russia fell.

    They don’t know the difference between Socialism and Communism, it’s all the same to them.

  23. avatar
    yguy July 15, 2010 at 10:46 am #

    JoZeppy:
    Or perhaps a realization that basic attitudes change.

    Basic values don’t; and to the degree they are abandoned, the Constitution goes with them, whether it’s nominally in force or not.

  24. avatar
    HORUS July 15, 2010 at 10:48 am #

    “It is not a holy script, handed down by God”

    They treat the Constitution the same way they treat Leviticus of the Bible.
    They pick out which parts they like and to hell with the rest of it.

  25. avatar
    Majority Will July 15, 2010 at 10:53 am #

    HORUS: Another line these people like to throw out is Socialism is proven to be a failed policy because Russia fell.They don’t know the difference between Socialism and Communism, it’s all the same to them.

    Which is hypocritical since all Americans in many ways are dependent upon the products and services of democratic socialism. If they want to pick and choose, fine. That’s why we have Senators and Representatives and the right to vote.

  26. avatar
    Sef July 15, 2010 at 11:12 am #

    yguy:
    Basic values don’t; and to the degree they are abandoned, the Constitution goes with them, whether it’s nominally in force or not.

    If we all were strictly originalist we would not have ANY of the amendments, including the Bill of Rights. How do you think we have any of the basic rights we all take for granted?

  27. avatar
    Bovril July 15, 2010 at 11:17 am #

    Yguy,

    Still waiting for a response to my question, if I didn’t know any better I would feel you really are that immature and insecure 13 year old that has been discussed of.

    Why oh why can’t you answer a simple question?

    In case you’ve forgotten, the question is.

    So, Yguy, do tell.

    You want, nay demand to see the mystical long form as you have “issues” with the short one.

    What precisely IS it you expect to see in said form that differs from the posted COLB.

    Please, enquiring minds need to know, you have never ACTUALLY illuminated our darkness with your wisdom in this area, really, I and others need to know.

    What is your requirement, what is it you need to see and will the “long form” suffice.

    No squirming now, simple request, what is or are the elements that would calm your fevered mind.

  28. avatar
    Majority Will July 15, 2010 at 11:29 am #

    Sef:
    If we all were strictly originalist we would not have ANY of the amendments, including the Bill of Rights. How do you think we have any of the basic rights we all take for granted?

    I’m going to go way out on a limb and guess that you won’t get a logical or coherent response if any at all. Ditto for Bovril.

  29. avatar
    yguy July 15, 2010 at 11:48 am #

    Sef:
    If we all were strictly originalist we would not have ANY of the amendments, including the Bill of Rights.

    You obviously don’t know the meaning of the word.

    How do you think we have any of the basic rights

    They are an endowment from the Creator.

    we all take for granted?

    Speak for yourself, if you don’t mind.

  30. avatar
    JoZeppy July 15, 2010 at 11:50 am #

    yguy: Basic values don’t; and to the degree they are abandoned, the Constitution goes with them, whether it’s nominally in force or not.

    Basic values don’t change?

    Let’s look at some of those basic values from the founders’ time. An African American is 3/5 a person, and can be considered personal property (a value our founders enshrined in and specifically protected in the Constition). As this is personal property, and not a human being, you can force yourself upon the female 3/5 person you own, and it would not be rape. You can sell the offsprping of this union, and that’s ok, because since it is the product of a union with 3/5 of a person, it’s really not your child in any real sense. If you like, you could even kill your 3/5 person, and as it is your presonal property, there is no threat of prosecution under the law.

    The lot of women wasn’t much better. Women were also little more than chattel. A married woman could not own personal property. Under the law a married woman could not be raped by her husband. A man could beat his wife without fear of prosecution (as long as he didn’t beat her too hard as to cause serious damage). A woman would have to suffer all this, and certianly could not ask for divorce on these grounds, because afterall, the values of the time required women fill a certain role, and that role was secondary to the man.

    Now again, how do these very basic values on how we treat our fellow human unchanged?

  31. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) July 15, 2010 at 11:53 am #

    JoZeppy: Basic values don’t change?Let’s look at some of those basic values from the founders’ time. An African American is 3/5 a person, and can be considered personal property (a value our founders enshrined in and specifically protected in the Constition). As this is personal property, and not a human being, you can force yourself upon the female 3/5 person you own, and it would not be rape. You can sell the offsprping of this union, and that’s ok, because since it is the product of a union with 3/5 of a person, it’s really not your child in any real sense. If you like, you could even kill your 3/5 person, and as it is your presonal property, there is no threat of prosecution under the law.The lot of women wasn’t much better. Women were also little more than chattel. A married woman could not own personal property. Under the law a married woman could not be raped by her husband. A man could beat his wife without fear of prosecution (as long as he didn’t beat her too hard as to cause serious damage). A woman would have to suffer all this, and certianly could not ask for divorce on these grounds, because afterall, the values of the time required women fill a certain role, and that role was secondary to the man.Now again, how do these very basic values on how we treat our fellow human unchanged?

    You also left out the part where if you didn’t own property you couldn’t vote. So if you rent good luck having your voice heard.

  32. avatar
    misha July 15, 2010 at 11:56 am #

    yguy: They are an endowment from the Creator.

    Sorry, I don’t believe in fairy tales.

  33. avatar
    ellid July 15, 2010 at 11:56 am #

    yguy:
    And well they should, since the idea of a document being alive is a transparent sophism employed to camouflage the de facto commandeering of the amendment process by the courts.

    Please state for the record which amendments to the Constitution were brought into being by the courts and not the amendment process, using as your source a mainstream publication such as the Encyclopedia Britannica, the New York Times, Boston Globe, Time, Newsweek, etc., or a reputable textbook published by a mainstream publisher such as Houghton Mifflin, Scott Foresman, etc. And no, I don’t mean interpretations of the Constitution, such as have been going on since Marbury v. Madison. I mean AMENDMENTS.

    In short, put up or shut up. Thank you.

  34. avatar
    Sef July 15, 2010 at 11:59 am #

    yguy:
    You obviously don’t know the meaning of the word.
    They are an endowment from the Creator.
    Speak for yourself, if you don’t mind.

    You are confusing the Declaration of Independence & the Constitution. The Constitution is the basis of our government & laws, not the Declaration. And certainly not ANY “holy” book.

  35. avatar
    sfjeff July 15, 2010 at 11:59 am #

    “Before you do, however, you might want to consider why Lincoln’s suspension of the Great Writ during the Civil War did or did not constitute a far more egregious power grab,”

    Funny you should mention that. Because in my opinion Lincoln is probably more responsible for changing our interpretation of the Constitution than any other. I think Lincoln’s actions were both unconstitutional and the best course of action for the United States. Lincoln saved the Union and the Great United States that people look back on so nostalgically is the result of his actions.

    So should Lincoln have been impeached or applauded?

  36. avatar
    Greg July 15, 2010 at 12:02 pm #

    yguy: Before you do, however, you might want to consider why Lincoln’s suspension of the Great Writ during the Civil War did or did not constitute a far more egregious power grab, and whether you are prepared to defend the proposition that the Constitution is indeed a suicide pact.

    Enlighten us, yguy. How about you pick a side and argue it. I’m pretty sure that I haven’t seen a fully formed argument from you yet.

    Did Lincoln’s suspension of Habeas Corpus during the Civil War constitute a far more egregious power grab than Bush/Cheney’s? Why or why not?

    Does that justify Bush/Cheney’s power grab?

    Is the Constitution a suicide pact and if not, were our options limited to suicide or Bush/Cheney’s power grab?

    Was the threat of suicide greater from jihadists than from Timothy McVeigh and the militia movement? Was the threat of suicide greater from jihadists or from the Soviets and their nuclear arsenal?

  37. avatar
    Majority Will July 15, 2010 at 12:04 pm #

    JoZeppy:
    Basic values don’t change?Let’s look at some of those basic values from the founders’ time.An African American is 3/5 a person, and can be considered personal property (a value our founders enshrined in and specifically protected in the Constition).As this is personal property, and not a human being, you can force yourself upon the female 3/5 person you own, and it would not be rape.You can sell the offsprping of this union, and that’s ok, because since it is the product of a union with 3/5 of a person, it’s really not your child in any real sense.If you like, you could even kill your 3/5 person, and as it is your presonal property, there is no threat of prosecution under the law.The lot of women wasn’t much better.Women were also little more than chattel.A married woman could not own personal property.Under the law a married woman could not be raped by her husband.A man could beat his wife without fear of prosecution (as long as he didn’t beat her too hard as to cause serious damage).A woman would have to suffer all this, and certianly could not ask for divorce on these grounds, because afterall, the values of the time required women fill a certain role, and that role was secondary to the man.Now again, how do these very basic values on how we treat our fellow human unchanged?

    There are a few sick minds who fantasize about returning to that society.

  38. avatar
    sfjeff July 15, 2010 at 12:04 pm #

    No wait- I want to hear from Yguy what are these basic rates that the Creator endowed upon all humans. Really i do.

  39. avatar
    Majority Will July 15, 2010 at 12:08 pm #

    Sef:
    You are confusing the Declaration of Independence & the Constitution.The Constitution is the basis of our government & laws, not the Declaration.And certainly not ANY “holy” book.

    But then, any good birther will swear by Vattel which would include the notion of a state mandated theocracy.

  40. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) July 15, 2010 at 12:12 pm #

    sfjeff: No wait- I want to hear from Yguy what are these basic rates that the Creator endowed upon all humans. Really i do.

    Is Yguy fantasizing about how endowed we are?

  41. avatar
    yguy July 15, 2010 at 12:13 pm #

    JoZeppy:
    Basic values don’t change?Let’s look at some of those basic values from the founders’ time.An African American is 3/5 a person

    I stopped reading here. Get back to me when your understanding of constitutional principles surpasses that of a sea urchin. TIA.

  42. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) July 15, 2010 at 12:15 pm #

    yguy: I stopped reading here. Get back to me when your understanding of constitutional principles surpasses that of a sea urchin. TIA.

    Says the one who confuses the constitution with the declaration of independence

  43. avatar
    yguy July 15, 2010 at 12:23 pm #

    misha:
    Sorry, I don’t believe in fairy tales.

    Neither did Franklin or Jefferson, and neither do I. πŸ˜‰

  44. avatar
    Sef July 15, 2010 at 12:30 pm #

    yguy:
    Neither did Franklin or Jefferson, and neither do I.

    But you said you believe our basic rights are endowed by a creator, so clearly you do believe in fairy tales.

  45. avatar
    yguy July 15, 2010 at 12:35 pm #

    sfjeff: I think Lincoln’s actions were both unconstitutional and the best course of action for the United States.

    You’re half right. Even granting the dubious premise that suspension of the Great Writ is reserved exclusively to Congress, Lincoln can reasonably be presumed to have been acting in pursuance of the objectives stated in the Preamble, which in exigent circumstances trumps everything else in the Constitution.

  46. avatar
    yguy July 15, 2010 at 12:38 pm #

    Sef:
    But you said you believe our basic rights are endowed by a creator, so clearly you do believe in fairy tales.

    Then so did Jefferson and Franklin, since both affirmed their belief in a Creator by their signature on the DoI.

    Right?

  47. avatar
    yguy July 15, 2010 at 12:44 pm #

    ellid:
    And no, I don’t mean interpretations of the Constitution, such as have been going on since Marbury v. Madison.

    Evidently the meaning of “de facto” escapes you.

  48. avatar
    yguy July 15, 2010 at 12:52 pm #

    Greg:
    Bush/Cheney’s power grab

    You need to be specific about what either of them did that was beyond the authority of their respective offices. I suggest you name one such violation, and take your best shot.

  49. avatar
    Sef July 15, 2010 at 1:00 pm #

    yguy:
    You need to be specific about what either of them did that was beyond the authority of their respective offices. I suggest you name one such violation, and take your best shot.

    Well, there was the little outing of a CIA agent, which in a lot of people’s book was high treason.

  50. avatar
    JoZeppy July 15, 2010 at 1:10 pm #

    yguy: I stopped reading here. Get back to me when your understanding of constitutional principles surpasses that of a sea urchin. TIA.

    So says the person with no legal trainin, who seems to think that Constitutional principles come from the Declaration of Independence, but something that was actually written into the Constitution is not?

    I guess I should be greatful that my Comlaw professors had a different view of my understanding of constitutional priniciples…but hey, what does a law school professor have on you?

  51. avatar
    Majority Will July 15, 2010 at 1:12 pm #

    Sef:
    Well, there was the little outing of a CIA agent, which in a lot of people’s book was high treason.

    Here’s a pretty good list:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_scandals_of_the_United_States#Executive_Branch_scandals_2

  52. avatar
    JoZeppy July 15, 2010 at 1:13 pm #

    yguy: You’re half right. Even granting the dubious premise that suspension of the Great Writ is reserved exclusively to Congress, Lincoln can reasonably be presumed to have been acting in pursuance of the objectives stated in the Preamble, which in exigent circumstances trumps everything else in the Constitution.

    And pray tell where do you come up with this wholly unsupported concept that the preamble trumps everything??? And you talk about others’ lack of understanding Constitutional principles?

  53. avatar
    yguy July 15, 2010 at 1:20 pm #

    Sef:
    Well, there was the little outing of a CIA agent, which in a lot of people’s book was high treason.

    She was “outed” by Armitage, not W or Cheney – not that I’ve ever seen any convincing evidence that her status was such a big secret to begin with.

  54. avatar
    JoZeppy July 15, 2010 at 1:20 pm #

    yguy: You need to be specific about what either of them did that was beyond the authority of their respective offices. I suggest you name one such violation, and take your best shot.

    Signing statements that acted either to interpret their law (role of the judiciary), or pretty much re-write the law (role of the legislature), by exempting themselves from falling under the law.

    And if you want a couple of specific examples (there were about 1000 during his time in office):

    Dec. 30, 2005: US interrogators cannot torture prisoners or otherwise subject them to cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment.

    Bush’s signing statement: The president, as commander in chief, can waive the torture ban if he decides that harsh interrogation techniques will assist in preventing terrorist attacks.

    Dec. 30: When requested, scientific information ”prepared by government researchers and scientists shall be transmitted [to Congress] uncensored and without delay.”

    Bush’s signing statement: The president can tell researchers to withhold any information from Congress if he decides its disclosure could impair foreign relations, national security, or the workings of the executive branch.

    Aug. 8: The Department of Energy, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and its contractors may not fire or otherwise punish an employee whistle-blower who tells Congress about possible wrongdoing.

    Bush’s signing statement: The president or his appointees will determine whether employees of the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission can give information to Congress.

  55. avatar
    sfjeff July 15, 2010 at 1:22 pm #

    “Lincoln can reasonably be presumed to have been acting in pursuance of the objectives stated in the Preamble, which in exigent circumstances trumps everything else in the Constitution.”

    Wow. I guess I missed that part in the Constitution. The President can ignore everything below the Preamble in order to support the objectives of the Preamble?

    So if the President decided that there is a Health care crisis he could unilaterally impose health care since the Preamble says the Constitution is established to “promote the general Welfare,”

  56. avatar
    Sef July 15, 2010 at 1:23 pm #

    yguy:
    She was “outed” by Armitage, not W or Cheney – not that I’ve ever seen any convincing evidence that her status was such a big secret to begin with.

    You are REALLY clueless!

  57. avatar
    sponson July 15, 2010 at 1:28 pm #

    Republican Congressman Bob Inglis of South Carolina, defeated in a recent primary, criticizes Senator David Vitter for promoting birtherism. Quoting Inglis: “As to the Birther matter, let me be clear. The president is obviously a citizen of the United States. … So, really we do lose credibility when we spend time talking about such things. Why do we do that? We do it because we want to vilify the other side. We want to make them into the big bad guys.”

  58. avatar
    sfjeff July 15, 2010 at 1:34 pm #

    Before we get bogged down with Yguy’s nits, lets discuss his assertions:

    “And well they should, since the idea of a document being alive is a transparent sophism employed to camouflage the de facto commandeering of the amendment process by the courts”

    Examples please Yguy.

    “Basic values don’t; and to the degree they are abandoned, the Constitution goes with them, whether it’s nominally in force or not.”

    Examples please Yguy. What are the basic values that are expressed in the Constitution that you see as being abandoned or being proposed to be abandoned?

  59. avatar
    Greg July 15, 2010 at 1:43 pm #

    yguy: You need to be specific about what either of them did that was beyond the authority of their respective offices. I suggest you name one such violation, and take your best shot.

    I’m asking you to explain your beliefs. For example, you said:

    Before you do, however, you might want to consider why Lincoln’s suspension of the Great Writ during the Civil War did or did not constitute a far more egregious power grab [than “Buxh/Cheney’s egregious grab”]

    Why don’t you tell us what Lincoln did, specifically, and tell us what it was a far more egregious power grab than, specifically?

    Can you explain what you believe? Or is that beyond you?

    Do you, in fact, believe anything?

  60. avatar
    Gorefan July 15, 2010 at 1:50 pm #

    yguy: Then so did Jefferson and Franklin, since both affirmed their belief in a Creator by their signature on the DoI.

    Jefferson as well as many of the Founders were Deists and Freemasons, who while they believed in a Creator, had serious doubts about the divinity of Christ. Many of them would not be considered Christians by todays evangelicals. It was their belief in a God without a necessary belief in Christianity that helps explain Article 11 of the 1797 Treaty with Tripoli:

    “Article 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”

    Approved unanimously by the Senate and signed by President Adams.

  61. avatar
    yguy July 15, 2010 at 1:51 pm #

    JoZeppy:
    Signing statements that acted either to interpret their law (role of the judiciary),

    Not exclusively.

    or pretty much re-write the law (role of the legislature), by exempting themselves from falling under the law.

    Signing statements don’t do that. Insofar as they go beyond empty rhetoric, they just state the President’s view of his responsibilities under the law to which they pertain in light of the Constitution, which the President is required to interpret so as to enable obedience to his oath of office.

    Again, didn’t bother reading the rest.

  62. avatar
    yguy July 15, 2010 at 2:04 pm #

    sfjeff: The President can ignore everything below the Preamble in order to support the objectives of the Preamble?

    No, he needs to be aware of which takes precedence, just as he cannot under the Constitution execute a statute that legalizes slavery.

    So if the President decided that there is a Health care crisis he could unilaterally impose health care since the Preamble says the Constitution is established to “promote the general Welfare,”

    That is a perversion of what I’m talking about – and essentially what Obama et al are doing by contriving a health care emergency so as to accrue power to themselves by addressing it.

  63. avatar
    yguy July 15, 2010 at 2:25 pm #

    sfjeff: “And well they should, since the idea of a document being alive is a transparent sophism employed to camouflage the de facto commandeering of the amendment process by the courts”

    Examples please Yguy.

    Wickard v Filburn, Roe v Wade and Lawrence v Texas come to mind.

    What are the basic values that are expressed in the Constitution that you see as being abandoned or being proposed to be abandoned?

    Liberty and justice are being abandoned in favor of license, the cultivation of which inevitably leads to the innocent being murdered or enslaved by the guilty.

  64. avatar
    yguy July 15, 2010 at 2:30 pm #

    Gorefan:
    Jefferson as well as many of the Founders were Deists and Freemasons, who while they believed in a Creator, had serious doubts about the divinity of Christ.

    Many of them would not be considered Christians by todays evangelicals.

    And…?

    It was their belief in a God without a necessary belief in Christianity that helps explain Article 11 of the 1797 Treaty with Tripoli:“Article 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion…”

    You do realize the government is not the nation, right?

  65. avatar
    Greg July 15, 2010 at 2:51 pm #

    yguy: Wickard v Filburn, Roe v Wade and Lawrence v Texas come to mind.

    And they are a de facto commandeering of the amendment process how?

  66. avatar
    Greg July 15, 2010 at 2:58 pm #

    yguy: Liberty and justice are being abandoned in favor of license, the cultivation of which inevitably leads to the innocent being murdered or enslaved by the guilty.

    Is it possible for you to speak in vaguer, less concrete terms?

    How about – “bad things are being done by people instead of good things done by people about stuff.”

    C’mon yguy, if you keep going down this road, next you’ll be explaining where in the Constitution you find liberty and justice enshrined and giving concrete examples of how they’re being abandoned in favor of license and how, exactly, innocent people are being murdered or enslaved by the guilty. And that would endanger your streak of never giving actually making an argument!

  67. avatar
    JoZeppy July 15, 2010 at 3:02 pm #

    yguy: No, he needs to be aware of which takes precedence, just as he cannot under the Constitution execute a statute that legalizes slavery.

    and can you explain where one finds the score card as to which provisions of the constitution take precidence of which?

  68. avatar
    Bovril July 15, 2010 at 3:14 pm #

    Folks.

    Yguy is a ridiclulous little troll who has never ACTUALLY been capable of articulating ANY of his stances so why ask him,,,,?

    I’ve been asking the same simple question of him for 2 weeks now and he still refuses to answer, exactly the same as with every other question above, a sure sign of the shallowness of his intellectual basis.

    I intend to continue asking this simple question every time he posts

    Balls in your court Yguy……again I told you, I can keep this up for ever.

  69. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) July 15, 2010 at 3:15 pm #

    JoZeppy: And pray tell where do you come up with this wholly unsupported concept that the preamble trumps everything??? And you talk about others’ lack of understanding Constitutional principles?

    I once had someone argue that parts of the constitution can override other parts simply because congress makes its own rules of decorum. Saying somehow punishing Joe Wilson for the You Lie amounted to restricting his freedom of speech

  70. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) July 15, 2010 at 3:16 pm #

    yguy: She was “outed” by Armitage, not W or Cheney – not that I’ve ever seen any convincing evidence that her status was such a big secret to begin with.

    Incorrect Armitage was just one person who outed her Libby also did. So tell me just because one person robs a bank first do you let the accomplises off the hook?

  71. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) July 15, 2010 at 3:19 pm #

    yguy: Not exclusively.Signing statements don’t do that. Insofar as they go beyond empty rhetoric, they just state the President’s view of his responsibilities under the law to which they pertain in light of the Constitution, which the President is required to interpret so as to enable obedience to his oath of office.Again, didn’t bother reading the rest.

    Its not the president’s duty to intepret laws that is the courts the executive enforces them

  72. avatar
    The Sheriff's A Ni- July 15, 2010 at 3:21 pm #

    yguy: Wickard v Filburn, Roe v Wade and Lawrence v Texas come to mind.

    OK, point out in the Constitution where it says ‘no regulation of interstate commerce’, ‘no abortions’, and ‘no gays allowed’.

  73. avatar
    Gorefan July 15, 2010 at 3:22 pm #

    yguy: And…?You do realize the government is not the nation, right?

    And you do realize that the governent was created and derives its authority from the Constitution (a non-Christian document). And that the Nation is based on that non-Christian document.

  74. avatar
    The Sheriff's A Ni- July 15, 2010 at 3:24 pm #

    Bovril: Yguy is a ridiclulous little troll who has never ACTUALLY been capable of articulating ANY of his stances so why ask him,,,,?

    To prove that he’s a coward who runs from inconvenient truths faster than an Italian from British soldiers?

  75. avatar
    yguy July 15, 2010 at 4:07 pm #

    Greg:
    And they are a de facto commandeering of the amendment process how?

    Any SC decision that rests on a misinterpretation of a constitutional provision stands as such as long as it remains in force by the acquiescence of the other branches.

  76. avatar
    yguy July 15, 2010 at 4:16 pm #

    Greg:
    you’ll be explaining where in the Constitution you find liberty and justice enshrined

    No need to explain that, as they’re in the very first sentence.

    and giving concrete examples of how they’re being abandoned in favor of license and how, exactly, innocent people are being murdered or enslaved by the guilty.

    The most obvious example is Roe, which has effectively legitimized promiscuity at the expense of the unborn.

  77. avatar
    Greg July 15, 2010 at 4:16 pm #

    yguy: Any SC decision that rests on a misinterpretation of a constitutional provision stands as such as long as it remains in force by the acquiescence of the other branches.

    I wait with bated breath for the explanation of how these decisions were rested upon a misinterpretation of a constitutional provision.

  78. avatar
    Daniel July 15, 2010 at 4:20 pm #

    Yguy is typical of the birthers. He gathers up birther and tea party propaganda that he con spout on blogs all over the internet, without having to bother to learn enough about the subject to have a real understanding of it.

    That is why he will never answer direct questions put to him from real people. The answers to those questions aren’t in the sack o’ slogans he carries with him.

  79. avatar
    Greg July 15, 2010 at 4:22 pm #

    yguy: No need to explain that, as they’re in the very first sentence.

    Which sentence? Which liberty specifically is enshrined in the first sentence?

    yguy: The most obvious example is Roe, which has effectively legitimized promiscuity at the expense of the unborn.

    Where in Roe is promiscuity mentioned? Is promiscuity not liberty? What about privacy? The government cannot search your house without a properly issued warrant, but they can force women to carry a fetus to term against her wishes and against the advice of her doctor?

  80. avatar
    yguy July 15, 2010 at 4:25 pm #

    JoZeppy:
    and can you explain where one finds the score card as to which provisions of the constitution take precidence of which?

    For anyone who realizes that the Constitution was made for America rather than the reverse, and who understands that the Preamble says where we want to go while the rest of the Constitution says how we want to get there, it doesn’t take any cogitation at all to see which must take precedence.

  81. avatar
    sfjeff July 15, 2010 at 4:27 pm #

    “Any SC decision that rests on a misinterpretation of a constitutional provision stands as such as long as it remains in force by the acquiescence of the other branches.”

    This is like arguing with someone about their religious faith.

    Like it or not, a Supreme Court decision is the legal interpretation of the law in our country. You may disagree- as I do say for instance regarding the Supreme Courts recent ruling regarding Corporate political payoffs- but it is the legal interpretation and has to be enforced by the Executive.

    This is in no way “the de facto commandeering of the amendment process by the courts”, it is the courts interpreting the law and the constitution. Somebody has to do the interpretations.

    If you don’t like it- then use the Constitutional process- push for a Constitutional amendment reversing any decisions you disagree with.

    By the way- how is Wickard V Filburn an example of the Supreme Court misintrepreting an amendment anyway? Commerce Clause is in the original Constitution.

  82. avatar
    yguy July 15, 2010 at 4:34 pm #

    Gorefan:
    And you do realize that the governent was created and derives its authority from the Constitution (a non-Christian document).

    More accurately, a nonreligious document.

    And that the Nation is based on that non-Christian document.

    No, the nation is not based on the Constitution. It is based on the collective character of its citizens.

  83. avatar
    sfjeff July 15, 2010 at 4:42 pm #

    “Liberty and justice are being abandoned in favor of license, the cultivation of which inevitably leads to the innocent being murdered or enslaved by the guilty.”

    So……Liberty and justice….as originally envisioned by the writers of the Constitution are being abandoned…… in favor of license? which inevitably leads to the innocent being murderd or enslaved by the guity?

    At the time of the Constitution, Slavery was legal through most of the Union. Women did not have liberty. Children could be put to work under horrendous conditions and worked to death.

    Justice? If you were a white male, and wealthy, you mostly had full access to a justice system. But if you were Native American, that justice was tenuous at best.

    Native Americans and African Americans were among the innocents legally murdered and enslaved at the time of the Constitution- and you are saying that we are abandoning Liberty and Justice?

    I get that you are coming from a strongly anti-abortion point of view, and apparently you have real issues with people havin sex outside of marriage too.

    But your point of view about what constitutes Liberty or Justice are just wrong. Your kind abhore true liberty. You want government to constrain and restrict personal liberties that offend you.

    Quoting Justice Kennedy “Liberty protects the person from unwarrented government intrusions.”

  84. avatar
    sfjeff July 15, 2010 at 4:49 pm #

    “For anyone who realizes that the Constitution was made for America rather than the reverse, and who understands that the Preamble says where we want to go while the rest of the Constitution says how we want to get there, it doesn’t take any cogitation at all to see which must take precedence.”

    What nonsense. The Preamble does indeed state the purpose for the Constitution, but it is such a broad statement that it by itself could be interpreted by you and i completely differently. That is why the Constitution does spell out the specifics, and its why you can’t ignore the specifics if you feel the specifics disagree with the Preamble.

  85. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) July 15, 2010 at 4:53 pm #

    sfjeff: “For anyone who realizes that the Constitution was made for America rather than the reverse, and who understands that the Preamble says where we want to go while the rest of the Constitution says how we want to get there, it doesn’t take any cogitation at all to see which must take precedence.”What nonsense. The Preamble does indeed state the purpose for the Constitution, but it is such a broad statement that it by itself could be interpreted by you and i completely differently. That is why the Constitution does spell out the specifics, and its why you can’t ignore the specifics if you feel the specifics disagree with the Preamble.

    The constitution is Yguy’s version of Leviticus he picks and chooses which parts are valid and which should be followed

  86. avatar
    JoZeppy July 15, 2010 at 5:01 pm #

    yguy: The most obvious example is Roe, which has effectively legitimized promiscuity at the expense of the unborn.

    And can you show anywhere in the Constitution where the unborn have any rights, or promiscuity is the subject of any regulation?

  87. avatar
    JoZeppy July 15, 2010 at 5:10 pm #

    yguy: For anyone who realizes that the Constitution was made for America rather than the reverse, and who understands that the Preamble says where we want to go while the rest of the Constitution says how we want to get there, it doesn’t take any cogitation at all to see which must take precedence.

    Well, you have it almost right. The preamble is an aspirational statement, but you have it backwards. The specific provisions of the Constitution are what wins the day, not a vague statement about the board goals of establishing the union. You’re not going to get around a specific Constitutional provision by saying your ultimate goal is supported by the preamble. You’re never gonig to win a legal argument based on the preamble.

  88. avatar
    misha July 15, 2010 at 5:50 pm #

    yguy: The most obvious example is Roe, which has effectively legitimized promiscuity at the expense of the unborn.

    Thanks for the compliment. I’m one of those Jewish New York liberals you read about. We’re still celebrating the affirmation of reproductive freedom, which is going to be secure with THREE Jews on the Court.

    I suggest you read this: http://gawker.com/5441576/why-do-the-jews-hate-sarah-palin-so-much

    You’ll enjoy my comments.

    My wife and I lived together for two years before marrying, with my mother in the same house. Before that, my mother let girlfriends stay overnight.

    Eat your heart out.

  89. avatar
    Sef July 15, 2010 at 5:50 pm #

    JoZeppy:
    and can you explain where one finds the score card as to which provisions of the constitution take precidence of which?

    That’s an easy one. Any Amendment supersedes any prior amendment & any provision in the original Constitution. That’s what the amendment process means.

    An interesting side note. The 27th Amendment was originally proposed in 1789, but only finally ratified in 1992. If any amendment prior to the ratification of the 27th had dealt with the same topic it would have been superseded by the wording of the 27th. That’s one of the reasons that time limits have been placed on recent proposed amendments like the ERA.

  90. avatar
    misha July 15, 2010 at 6:00 pm #

    yguy: The most obvious example is Roe, which has effectively legitimized promiscuity at the expense of the unborn.

    Yguy is a Christofascist. Vote Democratic if you don’t want the country theocratized. He’s guided by a book of fairy tales.

    Jerry Falwell, in a speech at his Liberty “University,” called the 1st Amendment “a mistake,” and called for an amendment to nullify the 1st, “with the Jewish people declared a protected amendment.”

  91. avatar
    yguy July 15, 2010 at 6:03 pm #

    Greg:
    I wait with bated breath for the explanation of how these decisions were rested upon a misinterpretation of a constitutional provision.

    Roe presumed to divine, from provisions (mainly 14AS1) which made not the slightest pretense of providing any such definition, that “person” cannot possibly include unborn children. Lawrence twisted 14AS1 to contrive a right to engage in sexual perversion. Wickard interpreted the commerce clause, which can only reasonably apply to transactions (other than with Indians) which cross state lines, so as to allow preventing a man from engaging in noncommercial activity.

  92. avatar
    yguy July 15, 2010 at 6:14 pm #

    Greg:
    Which sentence? Which liberty specifically is enshrined in the first sentence?

    I didn’t say *a* liberty was enshrined.

    Where in Roe is promiscuity mentioned?

    Who the hell cares?

    Is promiscuity not liberty?

    No, it’s license.

    they can force women to carry a fetus to term against her wishes

    No, they can prosecute her and the abortionist for killing it out of convenience.

  93. avatar
    yguy July 15, 2010 at 6:26 pm #

    sfjeff: Like it or not, a Supreme Court decision is the legal interpretation of the law in our country. … but it is the legal interpretation and has to be enforced by the Executive.

    Nonsense. The President swears to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, not SC rulings.

    If you don’t like it- then use the Constitutional process- push for a Constitutional amendment reversing any decisions you disagree with.

    So you think a decision made by 5 unelected people is properly checked by the act of a supermajority of states. Have I got that right?

    By the way- how is Wickard V Filburn an example of the Supreme Court misintrepreting an amendment anyway? Commerce Clause is in the original Constitution.

    Wow. πŸ™‚

  94. avatar
    Sef July 15, 2010 at 6:27 pm #

    yguy:
    I didn’t say *a* liberty was enshrined.
    Who the hell cares?
    No, it’s license.
    No, they can prosecute her and the abortionist for killing it out of convenience.

    Whoa! Somebody has some serious growing up to do.

  95. avatar
    yguy July 15, 2010 at 6:30 pm #

    sfjeff: The Preamble does indeed state the purpose for the Constitution, but it is such a broad statement that it by itself could be interpreted by you and i completely differently.

    That’s because I still have the common sense you abandoned so long ago.

  96. avatar
    Greg July 15, 2010 at 6:32 pm #

    yguy: Roe presumed to divine, from provisions (mainly 14AS1) which made not the slightest pretense of providing any such definition, that “person” cannot possibly include unborn children.

    Hmm. “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside…”

    How do you fit unborn into born? Seems pretty clear that born means born and unborn means something different, something “un-.”

    I guess you’re saying that fetuses are naturalized in the United States? I guess I missed that part of my wife’s pregnancies.

    Lawrence twisted 14AS1 to contrive a right to engage in sexual perversion.

    Specifics, please?

    Do you also disagree with Griswold v. Connecticut, which “contrived” a right to engage in sexual perversion, specifically non-procreative sex – i.e. buying contraceptives. If so, is there any sexual perversion the government is not allowed to control? Can they make you to copulate in the missionary position or outlaw blowjobs?

    If not, I await your Constitutional distinction between blowjobs which were outlawed in most states and gay sex.

    Wickard interpreted the commerce clause, which can only reasonably apply to transactions (other than with Indians) which cross state lines, so as to allow preventing a man from engaging in noncommercial activity.

    Define noncommercial? Was the argument in Wickard really that the growing of wheat was noncommercial or that the commercial activity was limited to local, intrastate use?

    If I shoot out the tires of every interstate truck that passes in front of my house, I’m not getting paid for that, but it certainly affects interstate commerce, right? But, the Feds cannot regulate my behavior because I’m not getting paid for it? And if I write an iron-clad contract that my drugs cannot be used outside of my state, they don’t have to comply with FDA regulations?

  97. avatar
    misha July 15, 2010 at 6:32 pm #

    yguy: Is promiscuity not liberty?No, it’s license.

    Hey, yguy: I had a fling with this model: http://ubereye.deviantart.com/gallery/

    Eat your heart out.

  98. avatar
    sfjeff July 15, 2010 at 6:34 pm #

    “Roe presumed to divine, from provisions (mainly 14AS1) which made not the slightest pretense of providing any such definition, that “person” cannot possibly include unborn children. Lawrence twisted 14AS1 to contrive a right to engage in sexual perversion. Wickard interpreted the commerce clause, which can only reasonably apply to transactions (other than with Indians) which cross state lines, so as to allow preventing a man from engaging in noncommercial activity”

    We could argue the decisions, but once again, someone has to decide these cases. In the Constitution, that power rests with the Supreme Court. if you don’t like that, then you should change the Constitution.

  99. avatar
    yguy July 15, 2010 at 6:35 pm #

    JoZeppy:
    Well, you have it almost right.

    Please, let us not forget who the teacher is (that would be me) and who the remedial con law student is (that would be you).

  100. avatar
    Greg July 15, 2010 at 6:40 pm #

    yguy: No, they can prosecute her and the abortionist for killing it out of convenience.

    Can they prosecute her for killing it for non-convenience reasons?

    Who the hell cares?

    Apparently you do, since you say that Roe legitimized promiscuity. What about Griswold v. Connecticut, which said that the state could not forbid married people from buying contraceptives. That case was concerned with promiscuous non-procreative sex. Do you agree that the government can forbid married folks from buying or using a rubber?

    No, it’s license.

    Please distinguish between license and liberty.

    No, they can prosecute her and the abortionist for killing it out of convenience.

    Since the first law outlawing abortion before the quickening of the fetus wasn’t enacted until 1803, how does prosecuting the woman and the abortionist for killing a pre-quickened fetus enshrine a constitutional principle?

  101. avatar
    sfjeff July 15, 2010 at 6:43 pm #

    “Nonsense. The President swears to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, not SC rulings.”

    Yes, and the each branch of our government has its purpose defined in the Constitution. The Supreme Court is the branch that is entrusted with judicial power. The Executive is entrusted with enforcing the law, and that includes judicial decisions.

    I can only infer from your statement that you advocate a government where the Executive would ignore any Supreme Court decision that it says is ‘unconstitutional’. If you don’t see the danger there, then we are probably at an impass.

  102. avatar
    JoZeppy July 15, 2010 at 6:45 pm #

    yguy: Please, let us not forget who the teacher is (that would be me) and who the remedial con law student is (that would be you).

    Oh please….with every comment you post, you total lack of anything regarding the law become more and more apparent.

    Oh great teacher, provide a single case that has been decided on the basis of the preamble of the Constitution…

  103. avatar
    sfjeff July 15, 2010 at 6:49 pm #

    “That’s because I still have the common sense you abandoned so long ago.”

    I haven’t seen much of an example of what i could consider common sense from you. I would imagine what you consider common sense is something i have never had.

    Apparently where we differ is that i would like the government to follow the rule of law rather than common sense. Because common sense is not defined nor agreed upon by everyone. The Constitution, and laws provide the framework that everyone should be able to rely upon.

    I may use my common sense when deciding what bread to pick out at the market. I don’t want my government using ‘common sense’ when deciding what personal behaviour I am allowed to do. I don’t want the government legislating my morals.

  104. avatar
    The Sheriff's A Ni- July 15, 2010 at 6:50 pm #

    So we’ve discovered that yguy has as much respect for freedoms and Constitutions as Mahmoud Ahmednijad. .

    Not surprising, really.

  105. avatar
    misha July 15, 2010 at 7:00 pm #

    The Sheriff’s A Ni-: So we’ve discovered that yguy has as much respect for freedoms and Constitutions as Mahmoud Ahmednijad. .Not surprising, really.

    Yguy is a fundie or a Holy Roller. Classic authoritarian: he spends his day worrying that someone, somewhere is having fun.

    Hey, yguy: I’m going to bake some Alice B. Toklas brownies.

  106. avatar
    JoZeppy July 15, 2010 at 7:03 pm #

    yguy: Roe presumed to divine, from provisions (mainly 14AS1) which made not the slightest pretense of providing any such definition, that “person” cannot possibly include unborn children. Lawrence twisted 14AS1 to contrive a right to engage in sexual perversion. Wickard interpreted the commerce clause, which can only reasonably apply to transactions (other than with Indians) which cross state lines, so as to allow preventing a man from engaging in noncommercial activity.

    Actually, there was a single paragraph in Roe of whether a person could include unborn, and it has nothing to do with the 14th Amendment. It was a side argument made by amici that was easily dismissed with the observation that no use of the word person in the constitution implied it could include a fetus. The decision was based on balancing the interests of the state in preserving prenatal life and the woman’s interest in privacy (which grows out of the 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th and 14th Amendments). As the fetus develops and become viable, the state’s interest increase, and the woman’s decreases.

    Strike one oh sage professor.

    Lawrence? It appears you’re basing you entire interpretation of the case on Scalia’s dissent. Besides my issue with the government (or you for that matter) become aribitor of what is sexually acceptable and what is prevision (particularly when it runs contrary to medical definition), Lawrence struck down Bowers, which was a case full of historic inaccuracies. Lawrence protected the rights of individual consenting adults to decide for themselves what they do in their bedrooms. For someone who was touting liberty not so long ago, I’m surpirsed you’re so supportive of the government peering under your bedsheets.

    Strike two.

    Wickard…how unreasonable is it to recognize that intra-state activities can effect interstate commerce? So unreasonable that no court has overruled it in 70 years?

    Three, and you’re out.

  107. avatar
    kimba July 15, 2010 at 7:14 pm #

    “yguy 15. Jul, 2010 at 1:20 pm yguy(Quote) #
    She was “outed” by Armitage, not W or Cheney – not that I’ve ever seen any convincing evidence that her status was such a big secret to begin with.”

    You have it 1/3 right. Valerie Plame was outed by leaks to Robert Novak from Armitage, Karl Rove and Scooter Libby. The evidence presented in the case United States v. I Lewis Libby showed Ms Plame’s status was indeed a Big Secret. The evidence also suggested the information was leaked to Cheney who leaked to Libby and Bush. Bush leaked it to Rove. Libby’s conviction on two counts of perjury, obstruction and making false statements to federal investigators were based on the fact that he lied to the FBI and the Justice Dept about what Cheney told him about Plame. Libby’s crimes prevented the FBI from finding for certain that Cheney was the original source of the leak.

  108. avatar
    milspec July 15, 2010 at 7:32 pm #

    yguy:
    For anyone who realizes that the Constitution was made for America rather than the reverse, and who understands that the Preamble says where we want to go while the rest of the Constitution says how we want to get there, it doesn’t take any cogitation at all to see which must take precedence.

    Jo that reply doesn’t even make sense

  109. avatar
    sfjeff July 15, 2010 at 7:35 pm #

    As I was curious about Yguy’s assertions i did a quick websearch, and wow. Let me put it this way- this is not the first time that he has stated that the Preamble has primacy over the rest of the Constitution.

    I can’t even imagine a United States where the President could unilaterally take action soley because it would be for the ‘welfare’ of the people of the United States without any other law to support his actions.

  110. avatar
    sfjeff July 15, 2010 at 7:39 pm #

    “So if the President decided that there is a Health care crisis he could unilaterally impose health care since the Preamble says the Constitution is established to “promote the general Welfare,”

    That is a perversion of what I’m talking about – and essentially what Obama et al are doing by contriving a health care emergency so as to accrue power to themselves by addressing it.”

    You are correct in one way- because Obama utlized the legislature and the Constitution to pass a healthcare bill, but of course he was doing so to promote the general welfare.

    But according to you, a President is allowed to unilaterally declare decide what the preamble means and take action accordingly,

  111. avatar
    kimba July 15, 2010 at 7:51 pm #

    “sfjeff 15. Jul, 2010 at 7:35 pm sfjeff(Quote) #
    I can’t even imagine a United States where the President could unilaterally take action soley because it would be for the welfare’ of the people of the United States without any other law to support his actions.”

    Utterly ridiculous, the preamble is just an introduction to the body of the Constitution. The powers of the President are in Article II.

    You can prove this by diagramming the single sentence of the preamble. One of the things I notice in birthers, fundies, rwnj’s is they don’t appear to have ever learned to diagram a sentence so they don’t seem to be able to break a sentence down into its logical parts. I think that’s why they misunderstand so many things they read.

    Let’s simplify the one sentence of the preamble for diagramming. Its subject is “We”, its Predicate is “do ordain and establish this Constitution”. All the rest is modifiers and prepositional phrases. “We do ordain and establish this Constitution.” There can be no mistake this sentence is an introduction to what’s in the body of the Constitution.

  112. avatar
    Dave July 15, 2010 at 8:14 pm #

    misha:
    Yguy is a fundie or a Holy Roller. Classic authoritarian: he spends his day worrying that someone, somewhere is having fun.Hey, yguy: I’m going to bake some Alice B. Toklas brownies.

    I fear you are failing to recognize an important point on which you are yguy are, I believe, entirely in agreement. He is criticizing Wickard v. Filburn — the decision that is the basis for the feds making pot growing illegal even when state law permits it.

  113. avatar
    yguy July 15, 2010 at 8:14 pm #

    Greg:
    Do you agree that the government can forbid married folks from buying or using a rubber?

    A state government can, as long as such laws don’t abridge any legitimate rights. For instance, it can ban the sale of contraceptives, but not install cameras in bedrooms.

    Please distinguish between license and liberty.

    License is the freedom to do evil, liberty is the freedom to do good.

    Distinguishing between good and evil is left as an exercise for the student.

    Since the first law outlawing abortion before the quickening of the fetus wasn’t enacted until 1803, how does prosecuting the woman and the abortionist for killing a pre-quickened fetus enshrine a constitutional principle?

    The premise is irrelevant to the question, to which the answer is that it protects the right of the unborn child to life, without which there can be no liberty in this world.

  114. avatar
    sfjeff July 15, 2010 at 8:28 pm #

    “He is criticizing Wickard v. Filburn — the decision that is the basis for the feds making pot growing illegal even when state law permits it.”

    I happen to think that Congress and the Supreme Court have way overreached the Commerce Clause. But I also recognize that the way to address my disagreement would be to amend the Constitution to clarify that the Federal Government would not be able to regulate commercial activiites contained entirely within a state.

  115. avatar
    sfjeff July 15, 2010 at 8:34 pm #

    “A state government can, as long as such laws don’t abridge any legitimate rights. For instance, it can ban the sale of contraceptives, but not install cameras in bedrooms.”

    And once again we come down to what is a legitimate right? Why is the sale of contraceptives not a right but preventing the state from installing a camera is a legitimate right.

    “License is the freedom to do evil, liberty is the freedom to do good.”

    I actually like that definition. I bet we disagree on what is evil and what is good- at least about many things.

    For instance we probably agree that murder is evil, but disagree whether abortion is murder or not. We probably agree that torture is evil, but i know that you approve of it when necessary- which of course would make it good, not evil.

    Oh I bet we could find many areas where you and i would disagree with what is good and what is evil.

  116. avatar
    yguy July 15, 2010 at 8:38 pm #

    sfjeff: The Executive is entrusted with enforcing the law, and that includes judicial decisions.

    Not so. The power to make law is vested in Congress at the federal statutory level and the States at the Constitutional level, so obviously anything that issues from the SC can only be respected by the President insofar as it does not run afoul of the Constitution or statutes passed in pursuance thereof.

    I can only infer from your statementthat you advocate a government where the Executive would ignore any Supreme Court decision that it says is unconstitutional’.

    fify

    If you don’t see the danger there, then we are probably at an impass.

    That you don’t see the danger in a President being obligated to carry out unconstitutional directives from 5 unelected people is, unfortunately, not surprising.

  117. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 15, 2010 at 8:54 pm #

    kimba: You have it 1/3 right. Valerie Plame was outed by leaks to Robert Novak from Armitage, Karl Rove and Scooter Libby.

    I found Scott McClellan’s kiss and tell book on the subject, What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception, an interesting read.

  118. avatar
    yguy July 15, 2010 at 8:56 pm #

    sfjeff: Apparently where we differ is that i would like the government to follow the rule of law rather than common sense.

    Then you belong in a dictatorship, since that is the inevitable result of divorcing the former from the latter.

    Because common sense is not defined nor agreed upon by everyone.

    More accurately, it isn’t respected by everyone.

    The Constitution, and laws provide the framework that everyone should be able to rely upon.

    No they don’t, unless they’re viewed through the lens of common sense.

  119. avatar
    yguy July 15, 2010 at 8:59 pm #

    kimba: Let’s simplify the one sentence of the preamble for diagramming.Its subject is “We”, its Predicate is “do ordain and establish this Constitution”.All the rest is modifiers and prepositional phrases.“We do ordain and establish this Constitution.”

    For no particular reason, huh?

  120. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 15, 2010 at 9:02 pm #

    Greg: Please distinguish between license and liberty.

    One of the few things I remember from my high school civics class over 40 years ago was the discussion of the difference liberty and license. Needless to say, the discussion was not very profound since for must of rural Alabama kids, license was something you needed to go huntin’.

  121. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 15, 2010 at 9:06 pm #

    yguy: Nonsense. The President swears to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, not SC rulings.

    And why, pray tell, did the Constitution create the Supreme Court if its rulings could not be enforced?

  122. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 15, 2010 at 9:08 pm #

    yguy: No, [promiscuity is not liberty] it’s license.

    So is the freedom of association liberty or license?

  123. avatar
    kimba July 15, 2010 at 9:09 pm #

    “Dr. Conspiracy 15. Jul, 2010 at 8:54 pm Dr. Conspiracy(Quote) #
    I found Scott McClellan’s kiss and tell book on the subject, What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception, an interesting read.”

    I need to read it. I think unless Libby writes a memoir and really spills his guts someday, we’ll never know what really happened. He won’t do it until Cheney dies, and maybe never if he gets his law license back.

  124. avatar
    Greg July 15, 2010 at 9:10 pm #

    yguy: For instance, it can ban the sale of contraceptives, but not install cameras in bedrooms.

    And the Constitutional basis for the one and not the other?

    The premise is irrelevant to the question, to which the answer is that it protects the right of the unborn child to life, without which there can be no liberty in this world.

    But neither the Constitution, nor any laws of the day, protected the rights of the unborn child. It was not a crime at the time of the Founding, to abort an unquickened fetus.

    How, then, was Roe a misinterpretation of a Constitutional provision.

    Remember, THAT is your argument:

    Any SC decision that rests on a misinterpretation of a constitutional provision stands as such [a de facto commandeering of the amendment process] as long as it remains in force by the acquiescence of the other branches.

    You seem to be arguing that it is irrelevant to whether the court is changing the Constitution that the Constitution did not protect the unborn.

    Then you belong in a dictatorship, since that is the inevitable result of divorcing the former from the latter.

    And you, sir, are William Roper:

    William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
    Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
    William Roper: Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!
    Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!

    License is the freedom to do evil, liberty is the freedom to do good.

    Distinguishing between good and evil is left as an exercise for the student.

    I’m still trying to understand your argument. Please explain why blowjobs and other non-procreative sex is good for heterosexuals, but evil for homosexuals.

    And why was it considered evil at the time of the Founding to get a blowjob from your wife? And do state governments properly exercise their power when they forbid blowjobs and non-procreative sex with your spouse?

  125. avatar
    Keith July 15, 2010 at 9:16 pm #

    yguy:
    Experience suggests you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about, but you are welcome to elaborate all the same. Before you do, however, you might want to consider why Lincoln’s suspension of the Great Writ during the Civil War did or did not constitute a far more egregious power grab, and whether you are prepared to defend the proposition that the Constitution is indeed a suicide pact.

    Here we go… (I’ll go get some popcorn before reading further down the thread)

  126. avatar
    Northland10 July 15, 2010 at 10:07 pm #

    Greg: And you, sir, are William Roper:

    William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
    Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
    William Roper: Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!

    From this quote, I cannot help but to be reminded of the Parable of the Tares:

    “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared.

    “The owner’s servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?’ ‘An enemy did this,’ he replied. The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?’

    “‘No,’ he answered, ‘because while you are pulling the weeds, you may root up the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.'” Matthew 13:24-30

    Tearing down the good to destroy the bad is quite an old habit of ours, it seems.

  127. avatar
    yguy July 15, 2010 at 10:20 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    And why, pray tell, did the Constitution create the Supreme Court if its rulings could not be enforced?

    They can be enforced as long as they’re constitutional.

  128. avatar
    yguy July 15, 2010 at 10:22 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    So is the freedom of association liberty or license?

    Depends on whom you’re associating with. πŸ˜‰

  129. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) July 15, 2010 at 10:35 pm #

    yguy:
    They can be enforced as long as they’re constitutional.

    It is not the executive branch’s job to interpret laws he is there to enforce them

  130. avatar
    yguy July 15, 2010 at 10:36 pm #

    Greg:

    For instance, it can ban the sale of contraceptives, but not install cameras in bedrooms.

    And the Constitutional basis for the one and not the other?

    10A and 4A respectively.

    How, then, was Roe a misinterpretation of a Constitutional provision.

    Already told you that.

    Remember, THAT is your argument:
    You seem to be arguing that it is irrelevant to whether the court is changing the Constitution that the Constitution did not protect the unborn.

    The only reason it didn’t is that what was known about pregnancy in 1973 wasn’t known circa 1800.

    I’m still trying to understand your argument. Please explain why blowjobs and other non-procreative sex is good for heterosexuals, but evil for homosexuals.

    Why should I explain an assertion I never made?

    And why was it considered evil at the time of the Founding to get a blowjob from your wife?

    Same reason it still is by commonsensical people today.

  131. avatar
    Northland10 July 15, 2010 at 10:36 pm #

    yguy: They can be enforced as long as they’re constitutional.

    And who determines if they are constitutional? Who’s power extends to all cases in law an equity arising under the Constitution?

    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; note: the eleventh amendment does add the stipulation about citizens from other states

    And so, what did the founders think:

    The first point depends upon this obvious consideration, that there ought always to be a constitutional method of giving efficacy to constitutional provisions. What, for instance, would avail restrictions on the authority of the State legislatures, without some constitutional mode of enforcing the observance of them? The States, by the plan of the convention, are prohibited from doing a variety of things, some of which are incompatible with the interests of the Union, and others with the principles of good government. The imposition of duties on imported articles, and the emission of paper money, are specimens of each kind. No man of sense will believe, that such prohibitions would be scrupulously regarded, without some effectual power in the government to restrain or correct the infractions of them. This power must either be a direct negative on the State laws, or an authority in the federal courts to overrule such as might be in manifest contravention of the articles of Union. There is no third course that I can imagine. The latter appears to have been thought by the convention preferable to the former, and, I presume, will be most agreeable to the States. The Federalist No. 80

  132. avatar
    Ellid July 15, 2010 at 10:39 pm #

    yguy: ellid

    I know exactly what “de facto” means. I repeat: put up or shut up.

  133. avatar
    ron July 15, 2010 at 11:07 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I share your experience, and I might add “not racists” to that. The reason that otherwise normal people hold such fantastical views eludes me and that is why I write so much on the topic, in an attempt to understand it better.I’m working on another article titled: Birther sideshow, that will focus on the gullibility of birthers. Here too I must keep in mind what you say.

    history continues to repeat itself, like there is some kind of handbook on how to fool americans handed down from generation to generation, many seems to not understand that many moons ago a group of people were convinced to fight a war for the rich that if the rich had won would not have done anything to improve their situation, despite the fact that that trickery cost more ameriaacn lives then any war in history many still to this day believe they did the right thing.I am talking about the civil war, the elitist that were slaveowners were few, the poor . non homeowners, non slave owners and no rights to votes common people that actually fought the war were many. They lost their lives and some their entire families because someone told them it was their fight. today people are being told to fight healthcare is that really in their best interest, when we all are at risk for cancer and can be uninsurable or dropped at the whim of the insurance comapny? fight extending unemployment benefits (when we all could be out of work tomorrow).reduce size of the governement when they are the only ones really hiring.. it really drives me crazy when people pick a side before the argument even begins. irrational actions create irational responses.in this day and age there are to many tools to helps us as inviduals find the truth.

  134. avatar
    Keith July 15, 2010 at 11:09 pm #

    Greg: I guess you’re saying that fetuses are naturalized in the United States? I guess I missed that part of my wife’s pregnancies.

    That would kill the birther argument that Durham went to Kenya to give birth wouldn’t it?

    Is there an argument in the blog-o-sphere that Obama was conceived abroad?

  135. avatar
    Keith July 15, 2010 at 11:16 pm #

    misha: Hey, yguy: I’m going to bake some Alice B. Toklas brownies.

    I prefer Chocolate Chip Cookies…

  136. avatar
    Keith July 15, 2010 at 11:25 pm #

    misha: Hey, yguy: I’m going to bake some Alice B. Toklas brownies.

    I prefer Chocolate Chip Cookies…

  137. avatar
    Keith July 15, 2010 at 11:44 pm #

    yguy:
    Not so. The power to make law is vested in Congress at the federal statutory level and the States at the Constitutional level, so obviously anything that issues from the SC can only be respected by the President insofar as it does not run afoul of the Constitution or statutes passed in pursuance thereof.

    Ridiculous. Read up on ‘checks and balances’. Google is your friend.

    Congress makes the law. POTUS executes the law. SCOTUS judges disputes about the law.

    They all have their role to play and cannot ignore each other.

    That you don’t see the danger in a President being obligated to carry out unconstitutional directives from 5 unelected people is, unfortunately, not surprising.

    SCOTUS is not 5 guys out of 9 making unconstitutional directives. SCOTUS is the part of our Government system that determines disputes about laws and the controlling provisions in the Constitution.

    This is a big hole in you argument about protection of the Constitution. You are, in this thread and in this line of argument, denying the role of SCOTUS to interpret the Constitution.

    You cannot have it both ways: you cannot both defend the Constitution and trash the Constitution.

    Furthermore, your insistence, in other threads, that SCOTUS can somehow have a role in forcing the State of Hawai’i to produce the original Hospital produced Birth Certificate, and that that will somehow force Obama out of he White House (in complete violation of the role granted to Legislative Branch by the Constitution, of course ), is further evidence of your schizophrenia. If the POTUS is somehow free to ignore the SCOTUS, how could their action force him out?

    Really. Study up on “Separation of Powers” and “Checks and Balances”. Your mental health will thank you for it.

  138. avatar
    Keith July 15, 2010 at 11:47 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    One of the few things I remember from my high school civics class over 40 years ago was the discussion of the difference liberty and license. Needless to say, the discussion was not very profound since for must of rural Alabama kids, license was something you needed to go huntin’.

    And ever’ body know “pie are round”?

  139. avatar
    The Sheriff's A Ni- July 15, 2010 at 11:47 pm #

    misha: Hey, yguy: I’m going to bake some Alice B. Toklas brownies.

    Dammit, now I want some Alice B. Toklas brownies.

  140. avatar
    The Sheriff's A Ni- July 15, 2010 at 11:51 pm #

    Keith: Ridiculous. Read up on checks and balances’. Google is your friend.

    Congress makes the law. POTUS executes the law. SCOTUS judges disputes about the law.

    They all have their role to play and cannot ignore each other.

    yguy never failed Civics 101. He just knows that democracy and the U.S. Constitution would never allow his Christofascist dictatorship, so he just stamps his little feet and whines all day. Sad, really.

  141. avatar
    Majority Will July 15, 2010 at 11:58 pm #

    The Sheriff’s A Ni-:
    . . . so he just stamps his little feet and whines all day. Sad, really.

    Small feet, small mind.

  142. avatar
    JoZeppy July 16, 2010 at 12:05 am #

    yguy: Same reason it still is by commonsensical people today.

    I think the right word is nonsensical in your case. Never in my life have I encountered some who truely lacked as little understanding about our government and acted so assured in their delusions as you. You genuinely don’t have a blessed clue about the checks and balances work in our government. If you can’t get the junior high civics stuff down, do you honestly expect to be able to understand due process, commerce clause, and penumbras and eminations?

  143. avatar
    Greg July 16, 2010 at 12:32 am #

    yguy: The only reason it didn’t is that what was known about pregnancy in 1973 wasn’t known circa 1800.

    Are you saying that what the Constitution protects depends on evolving scientific knowledge?

    Why don’t you tell us what scientific knowledge changed between 1776 and 1803 when the first laws came into existence criminalizing aborting an unquickened fetus?

    How, then, was Roe a misinterpretation of a Constitutional provision.

    Already told you that.

    You told me that it misinterpreted the 14th amendment’s “persons born or naturalized” to not include unborn persons.

    Then, are unborn fetuses born persons or naturalized persons?

    Can I remind you, again, of your argument:

    Any SC decision that rests on a misinterpretation of a constitutional provision stands as such [a de facto commandeering of the amendment process] as long as it remains in force by the acquiescence of the other branches.

    And, now the timeline:

    1776 – Nation founded
    1787 – Constitution adopted
    1803 – Abortion made illegal by statute
    1868 – 14th Amendment
    1973 – Roe v. Wade

    What I’m not seeing anywhere there is a Constitutional amendment saying that quickened fetuses have unalienable rights. You, apparently, are relying on evolving scientific knowledge to commandeer the amendment process.

    10A and 4A respectively.

    The fourth amendment only bans unreasonable searches and seizures. What makes having cameras in your bedroom unreasonable?

    You’ve already admitted that the State can ban the use of condoms, and, apparently, blowjobs from your wife

    Greg: And why was it considered evil at the time of the Founding to get a blowjob from your wife?

    yguy: Same reason it still is by commonsensical people today.

    Just so we’re clear, you think that getting oral sex from your wife is evil. And you think that that view is shared by “commonsensical” people today.

    Why should I explain an assertion I never made?

    This is why it might help for you to actually state what you believe. Are you saying, then, that all oral sex is evil? That appears to be what you seem to be claiming above.

    Why don’t you explain, then, what makes oral sex evil.

  144. avatar
    yguy July 16, 2010 at 12:56 am #

    Northland10:
    And who determines if they are constitutional?

    Ultimately, the People, through their representatives.

    What, for instance, would avail restrictions on the authority of the State legislatures, without some constitutional mode of enforcing the observance of them?

    While the judiciary is necessary for enforcement, it is not itself an agent thereof; which is why Hamilton observed in #78 that it has “neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.”

    Do you think such impotence was an accident?

  145. avatar
    yguy July 16, 2010 at 1:08 am #

    Ellid:
    I know exactly what “de facto” means.

    Then you know I’ve already put up, so shut up. πŸ™‚

  146. avatar
    Keith July 16, 2010 at 1:15 am #

    yguy:
    Ultimately, the People, through their representatives.

    You really need to understand “separation of powers” and “checks and balances” before you post another word. You might even try just reading the Constitution. Is that too much to ask of you if you are going to discuss the Constitution.

    The constitution gives the Judicial Branch the duty of determining whether a law is constitutional or not. Your phrase, “the People, through their representatives” is defining the Legislative Branch which is responsible for making laws, not deciding if a law is constitutional or not.

    While the judiciary is necessary for enforcement, it is not itself an agent thereof; which is why Hamilton observed in #78 that it has “neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.”Do you think such impotence was an accident?

    I refer you to my earlier comments about studying “separation of powers”. The Judiciary has no powers of enforcement over the President or the Congress. If a law is struck down it is not a law and the Executive cannot execute that law. If the POTUS continues to execute laws ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS then the remedy is impeachment by Congress. SCOTUS has no ability to remove the President.

  147. avatar
    sfjeff July 16, 2010 at 1:31 am #

    “Ultimately, the People, through their representatives”

    Fascinating. Since the People’s representatives are Congress, then any law passed by Congress would automatically be Constitutional, since Congress in your mind is the sole body which can determine what is Constitutional.

    Which means of course that you clearly believe that Obama’s healthcare program is constitutional since it was passed by Congress.

    And it also means that you believe in the tyranny of the majority, since the Supreme Court clearly cannot, in your opinion, determine whether a law is constitutional.

    Well Yguy, I will say you are rather original. Original as in your interpretation of the Constitution and the rule of law in the United States is yours and yours alone.

    And you know what I find evil? Evil is you- and the government you advocate- wanting to legislate my behaviour, and wanting to legislate behaviour between a husband and a wife.

    You say License is freedom to do evil. I would say that what you advocate is no less than the Talibanism of the United States, where rightious moralists feel that the ‘liberties’ of the West are wicked, and that government can mandate that men not shave their beards, that women can be stoned to death. Just scary fundamentalist stuff.

    Yeah I am happy I live in San Francisco. Its not perfect, but every time I see two men walking around holding hands with smiles on their faces, who don’t have to worry about being arrested just because they to be gay, or getting beaten up or killed while the police look the other way, I am very happy to live here, not in some fasco moralist state where the main rule is ‘common sense’ as defined by Yguy.

  148. avatar
    misha July 16, 2010 at 1:37 am #

    Yguy is a Christofascist. So is Sarah, but she’s keeping it under wraps for now.

  149. avatar
    Lupin July 16, 2010 at 1:38 am #

    The abortion outrage is something relatively new; a century or so.

    Did you know that at the time of Jesus, under roman law, even a born baby wasn’t actually considered a person until something like 1 year-old? You could actually have “late” or post-birth abortions, what we would call infanticide, and not incur any punishment. The bodies of such infants were thrown in a common grave/dump site and not buried in a proper grave according to the roman rituals.

    You would think that Jesus, being all-knowing, might have had the forethought of uttering even a smidgen of an objection to the practice, but since he didn’t, I assume it didn’t rank very high on his agenda. He certainly wasn’t shy about expressing his views on other matters.

    For most of our history, the Roman Catholic Church considered that the baby was ensouled only at birth — and there’s still plenty of good doctrinal evidence, including the writings of St Thomas Aquinas, to believe so. Therefore, prior to birth, the baby had no soul or only a formative soul (depending on who you read) and wasn’t a “human being”.

  150. avatar
    Greg July 16, 2010 at 1:39 am #

    yguy: Ultimately, the People, through their representatives.

    And if the People’s opinion of what the Constitution means changes, what then? Does that mean the Constitution…evolves, like it’s a living document?

    Lincoln died a hero, despite his suspension of habeas corpus.

    George W. left office with, if not the worst approval rating of any President at the end of his term, then close to it.

    Doesn’t that suggest that the People have passed a harsher judgment on Bush and his constitutional excesses than they did on Lincoln?

  151. avatar
    Benji Franklin July 16, 2010 at 1:43 am #

    Dear Greg,

    You wrote: “Why don’t you explain, then, what makes oral sex evil?”

    Well, the things that makes Birther oral sex evil, are its orgasm-triggering anti-Obama utterances.

    Benji Franklin

  152. avatar
    Lupin July 16, 2010 at 3:12 am #

    yguy: Experience suggests you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about, but you are welcome to elaborate all the same. Before you do, however, you might want to consider why Lincoln’s suspension of the Great Writ during the Civil War did or did not constitute a far more egregious power grab, and whether you are prepared to defend the proposition that the Constitution is indeed a suicide pact.

    You are welcome to prove me wrong. Show me a link to any writings by you opposing the Bush administration in the past. Otherwise be exposed as the blatant hypocrite you are.

    Also you shouldn’t write about religion, or Christianity, when you obviously know little or nothing about it.

  153. avatar
    Lupin July 16, 2010 at 3:24 am #

    yguy: You need to be specific about what either of them did that was beyond the authority of their respective offices. I suggest you name one such violation, and take your best shot.

    That one is easy.

    Besides violating the Presidential Oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution (Article II Section 1) and violating his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed (Article II Section 3), Bush and Cheney (1) manipulated intelligence and media so as to allege falsely a national security threat posed by Iraq and (2) deceived the Congress on the rationale for a war of aggression against Iraq and miscarried the action of the Congress, and ultimately waged an illegal war of aggression.

    On the domestic front, when Congress passed legislation requiring the Justice Department to give them reports on how the FBI was using the Patriot Act to search homes and secretly seize papers, Bush added a “signing statement” stating that the president could order the Justice Department to withhold any information from Congress upon his whim (if it impaired executive branch operations).

    When Congress approved legislation declaring that U.S. interrogators couldn’t torture prisoners, Bush added a signing statement saying that the president could waive the torture ban again upon his whim.

    These are but two examples of more than 100 signing statements containing over 500 constitutional challenges Bush added to new laws passed by the Congress, according to legal and constitutional scholars.

    Show me the protests by any of the birthers to this egregious abuse, or be branded a liar and a hypocrite.

  154. avatar
    Lupin July 16, 2010 at 3:29 am #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): The constitution is Yguy’s version of Leviticus he picks and chooses which parts are valid and which should be followed

    It’s actually worse than that.

    When his tribe tramples the Constitution, it’s okay and they must be defended. When it’s the rival tribe, it’s not okay and they must be fought.

    Same actions, different tribes, that’s all.

    That yguy for you: no principles, no knowledge, no moral compass, just pure tribal hatred. A Dalek.

  155. avatar
    obsolete July 16, 2010 at 4:37 am #

    Keith:
    That would kill the birther argument that Durham went to Kenya to give birth wouldn’t it?Is there an argument in the blog-o-sphere that Obama was conceived abroad?

    There is now… πŸ˜‰

  156. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 16, 2010 at 7:34 am #

    yguy: While the judiciary is necessary for enforcement, it is not itself an agent thereof; which is why Hamilton observed in #78 that it has “neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.”

    Do you think such impotence was an accident?

    And I think this leads us back to why a US President should be a natural born citizen. Our form of government only works because of the commitment of the executive to the rule of law and to the ideals of our Constitution. While nothing can guarantee such a commitment, our founders did what they could reasonably do to insure that our presidents think like Americans, identify as Americans and take an oath to uphold the Constitution, which includes deferring to the Supreme Court as to what is constitutional and what is not.

    We did have a few presidents recently (Reagan, Nixon and GW Bush) who did not respect the rule of law and we are much the worse for it. But even they still felt it necessary to keep their activities secret or in the case of Bush, claim some legal excuse. I don’t think any of them would have openly defied the Supreme Court: such a thing is unthinkable for an American.

  157. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 16, 2010 at 7:49 am #

    Keith: And ever’ body know “pie are round”?

    Not exactly. My high school math teacher said that pi was exactly equal to 22 / 7. He was really a good teacher, but just had this little bit of misinformation in his head. Being a reasonable fellow, I was able to convince him of the error.

  158. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 16, 2010 at 7:54 am #

    Keith: Congress makes the law. POTUS executes the law. SCOTUS judges disputes about the law.

    I suppose that if Congress passed a law that everyone had to walk backwards carrying a gas stove over their heads to keep their boots from exploding and the Supreme Court said it was constitutional, a president might….

  159. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 16, 2010 at 8:01 am #

    yguy:
    They can be enforced as long as they’re constitutional.

    Ultimately, your argument seems to be that the final authority on what the Constitution says is not the Supreme Court, but you, or a president that think like you.

    Won’t work.

  160. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 16, 2010 at 8:02 am #

    yguy: Dr. Conspiracy:
    So is the freedom of association liberty or license?

    Depends on whom you’re associating with. πŸ˜‰

    A smiley face is not a substantive answer.

  161. avatar
    JoZeppy July 16, 2010 at 10:06 am #

    So let’s sum up ConLaw by yguy.

    Who decides what is Constitutional? Congress, the President, the people…pretty much everyone except the Supreme Court?

    So what does the Supreme Court do? Well, necessary for enforcement…what exactly that role is, apparently only yguy knows, or will make it up on the spot to suit his needs.

    The President apprently is a kind of Constitutional ubermensch who can violate specific provisions in the Constitution (except for the ban on slavery…not sure why that one is sacrosanct, and the others aren’t…that is until yguy decides another provision meets his approval) if he can justify it under the broad language of the preamble.

    And finally, a liberty is everything that I feel I should be able to do, and a license is everything I feel you should not be able to do.

    And when you point out the flaws and absurdity of my arguments, and the fact that they lack any basis in the law or reality, I will merely claim it is because you lack common sense.

    Did I get everything?

  162. avatar
    HORUS July 16, 2010 at 10:10 am #

    “The reason that otherwise normal people hold such fantastical views eludes me and that is why I write so much on the topic, in an attempt to understand it better.”

    Doc, you’ll drive yourself crazy trying to figure out why they think like they do.
    You just have to resign yourself to the fact that they are NOTHING like us.
    We can NEVER know what makes the clock tick if we don’t know what language it is ticking in.

  163. avatar
    yguy July 16, 2010 at 10:23 am #

    Keith:
    Ridiculous. Read up on checks and balances’.

    With all due respect, I’m so far ahead of you on this it’s not funny.

    You are, in this thread and in this line of argument, denying the role of SCOTUS to interpret the Constitution.

    No, I merely note that said role cannot be exclusive to the Judiciary if constitutional oaths of office are to have any meaning. All you need do to confirm this for yourself is to consider what the proper response of the President would be if Congress passed a law requiring that homosexuals be interned as the Japanese were in WW2, and SCOTUS declared it constitutional.

    If you agree that the President would be constrained from executing such a law by his oath, you can surely see that your objection has no merit.

    If not, you are welcome to explain why you think the Constitution justifies such patent insanity.

  164. avatar
    Majority Will July 16, 2010 at 10:27 am #

    Case in point.

  165. avatar
    yguy July 16, 2010 at 10:28 am #

    sfjeff: “Ultimately, the People, through their representatives”Fascinating. Since the People’s representatives are Congress

    The President isn’t a representative of the People?

  166. avatar
    yguy July 16, 2010 at 10:32 am #

    Greg:
    And if the People’s opinion of what the Constitution means changes, what then? Does that mean the Constitution…evolves, like it’s a living document?

    No, it means the People evolve – or devolve, depending on one’s perspective.

  167. avatar
    Sef July 16, 2010 at 10:33 am #

    Greg, thanks for that great post.

  168. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) July 16, 2010 at 10:50 am #

    yguy: With all due respect, I’m so far ahead of you on this it’s not funny.No, I merely note that said role cannot be exclusive to the Judiciary if constitutional oaths of office are to have any meaning. All you need do to confirm this for yourself is to consider what the proper response of the President would be if Congress passed a law requiring that homosexuals be interned as the Japanese were in WW2, and SCOTUS declared it constitutional. If you agree that the President would be constrained from executing such a law by his oath, you can surely see that your objection has no merit. If not, you are welcome to explain why you think the Constitution justifies such patent insanity.

    There’s just that problem that japanese internment was unconstitutional. You seem to have things a bit backwards. The japanese internment wasn’t something through congress but rather an executive order that was deemed unconstitutional. Once again it isn’t the job of the president to interpret laws.

  169. avatar
    Sef July 16, 2010 at 1:34 pm #

    yguy:
    Congratulations. You have just affirmed the power of SCOTUSto amend the Constitution on its own authority.

    Oh ye of little brain!

  170. avatar
    sfjeff July 16, 2010 at 2:05 pm #

    “Your penchant for anal retentivity is getting to be a bit of a bore.”

    Yeah its sucks to be wrong doesn’t it?

  171. avatar
    sfjeff July 16, 2010 at 4:08 pm #

    Thanks Rickey- I hadn’t read that before and its a powerful argument.

  172. avatar
    sfjeff July 16, 2010 at 8:04 pm #

    “The ultimate expression of the will of the People is the Constitution, which is why federal officers swear an oath to it rather than to SC rulings; and nowhere in that document is the interpretive authority vested exclusively in SCOTUS.”

    No one swears to obey the President either, or Congress, yet required to follow orders from federal officers, and obey laws passed by Congress.

    The ultimate interpretive authority is the Supreme Court. You may disagree, just as you do with Roe V Wade, but this is the actual way our system works.

    With that you can continue to argue your fantasy world of how our government should work and what the Constitution really, really means.

    I am just so happy that we do have a Constitution and a Supreme Court that protects me from moralistic theocrats that would have the Federal and State governments legislate individual morality.

  173. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 17, 2010 at 7:33 am #

    Apparently I wasn’t the only one who found the fundamentalism analogy about the Tea Party. A listener to the same NPR story wrote this:

    I’m struck by the similarities between the Tea Party’s concept of the Constitution and the way fundamentalists treat the Bible. Each is considered a sacred text, handed down from God through a handful of prophets and treated as immutable and inviolable. And yet, in both cases, the texts are read very selectively. Bits and pieces are plucked out, always without context, to defend a rigid political position. I’d wager the two groups overlap a lot in membership, as well as mentality.

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128545979

  174. avatar
    kimba July 17, 2010 at 8:31 am #

    “the texts are read very selectively. Bits and pieces are plucked out, always without context, to defend a rigid political position.”

    He’s met yguy!

  175. avatar
    yguy July 17, 2010 at 11:12 am #

    sfjeff:

    sfjeff: “The ultimate expression of the will of the People is the Constitution, which is why federal officers swear an oath to it rather than to SC rulings; and nowhere in that document is the interpretive authority vested exclusively in SCOTUS.”No one swears to obey the President either,or Congress, yet required to follow orders from federal officers, and obey laws passed by Congress.

    Sure they are, insofar as such orders and laws are Constitutional. That’s why the Constitution doesn’t lend itself to the Nuremberg defense.

    The ultimate interpretive authority is the Supreme Court. You may disagree, just as you do with Roe V Wade, but this is the actual way our system works.

    Then the system is unconstitutional.

    I am just so happy that we do have a Constitution and a Supreme Court that protects me from moralistic theocrats that would have the Federal and State governments legislate individual morality.

    Evidently you haven’t read Mass. v EPA, which gives such aid and comfort to environmentalist zealots who would love nothing more than to ensure that nothing you do can possibly give offense to Holy Gaea.

  176. avatar
    yguy July 17, 2010 at 1:44 pm #

    Sef:
    Why do you think there had to be a law requiring her to issue a press release?

    I don’t. However, the good Doctor apparently does:

    yguy: She doesn’t have to say word one about his birthplace, other than under the direction of someone legally empowered to compel such testimony.

    yguy, under birther standards, I guess that would make you a liar. Under my standards, I would just call it negligent ignorance.

    §338-18 Disclosure of records.
    …(d) Index data consisting of name and sex of the registrant, type of vital event, and such other data as the director may authorize shall be made available to the public.

    A fair number of the members of the public requested this information and she made it available as required by the statute.

    BTW, I think Lupin should be required to prove he isn’t a wife beater. Don’t you? 8)

  177. avatar
    yguy July 17, 2010 at 1:46 pm #

    Lupin: @yguyYou have been given several chances to prove you’re not a racist, and failed.

    I believe this says everything about you that needs to be said.

    Thanks for your participation.

  178. avatar
    Sef July 17, 2010 at 2:03 pm #

    yguy:
    I don’t. However, the good Doctor apparently does:
    yguy, under birther standards, I guess that would make you a liar. Under my standards, I would just call it negligent ignorance.
    A fair number of the members of the public requested this information and she made it available as required by the statute.

    BTW, I think Lupin should be required to prove he isn’t a wife beater. Don’t you?

    What does that have to do with a press release?????????

  179. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 17, 2010 at 3:50 pm #

    yguy: BTW, I think Lupin should be required to prove he isn’t a wife beater. Don’t you? 8)

    I find some justification here. Lupin has admitted consorting with one Spike Milligan, and Milligan performed with Ray Ellington who was once heard to sing:

    It isn’t civilized to beat women
    No matter what they do or they say
    But can someone tell me what else
    Can you do with a drum?

  180. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 17, 2010 at 3:58 pm #

    yguy: So are you ever gonna tell me why you think Fukino was required by HI law to issue those press releases about Obama?

    I see you found my answer for yourself.

  181. avatar
    Majority Will July 17, 2010 at 6:46 pm #

    “I believe this says everything about you that needs to be said.”

    “There must be some way out of here,” said the joker to the thief,
    “There’s too much confusion, I can’t get no relief.
    Businessmen, they drink my wine, plowmen dig my earth,
    None of them along the line know what any of it is worth.”

    “No reason to get excited,” the thief, he kindly spoke,
    “There are many here among us who feel that life is but a joke.
    But you and I, we’ve been through that, and this is not our fate,
    So let us not talk falsely now, the hour is getting late.”

    – Bob Dylan

  182. avatar
    Lupin July 18, 2010 at 1:45 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I find some justification here. Lupin has admitted consorting with one Spike Milligan, and Milligan performed with Ray Ellington who was once heard to sing:

    Top points for the Goon Show reference!

    I did interface briefly with Spike in the late 70s when I worked on a Goon Show comic strip that ended up not happening., A shame too.

    Spike was a bloody genius.

  183. avatar
    Keith July 18, 2010 at 5:21 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I find some justification here. Lupin has admitted consorting with one Spike Milligan, and Milligan performed with Ray Ellington who was once heard to sing:

    My wife’s sister’s father-in-law went to school with Spike Milligan in Burma!

  184. avatar
    misha July 18, 2010 at 6:05 am #

    Keith: My wife’s sister’s father-in-law went to school with Spike Milligan in Burma!

    Two Jewish men are having lunch.

    The first man says, “That Einstein is both rich and famous.”
    Second man: “Rich AND famous? That’s some trick. How did he do it?”
    First man: “He discovered the Theory of Relativity.”
    Second man: “Vas iss the Theory of Relativity?”
    First man: “Vell, suppose it’s a real cold day. Before you go out, you take a cold shower. It doesn’t seem as cold as it really is. Now, suppose you take a real hot shower. It will feel much colder than it really is. That’s relativity.”
    Second man: “And from this, he earns a living?”

  185. avatar
    yguy July 18, 2010 at 11:45 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: yguy: So are you ever gonna tell me why you think Fukino was required by HI law to issue those press releases about Obama?

    I see you found my answer for yourself.

    Guess I’ll have to take that as a “no”. πŸ™

  186. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 18, 2010 at 2:46 pm #

    yguy: Obviously, and it’s because of people like you that America is sinking into despotism.

    No, the Tea Party hasn’t taken over yet.

  187. avatar
    bovril July 18, 2010 at 4:33 pm #

    Yguy,

    Still waiting for a response to my question, if I didn’t know any better I would feel you really are that immature and insecure 13 year old that has been discussed of.

    Why oh why can’t you answer a simple question?

    In case you’ve forgotten, the question is.

    So, Yguy, do tell.

    You want, nay demand to see the mystical long form as you have “issues” with the short one.

    What precisely IS it you expect to see in said form that differs from the posted COLB.

    Please, enquiring minds need to know, you have never ACTUALLY illuminated our darkness with your wisdom in this area, really, I and others need to know.

    What is your requirement, what is it you need to see and will the “long form” suffice.

    No squirming now, simple request, what is or are the elements that would calm your fevered mind.

  188. avatar
    yguy July 18, 2010 at 4:44 pm #

    Rickey: Please. If SCOTUS ruled that a birther lawsuit could go forward, it obviously would require a response by Obama.

    No, a declaration of standing by itself wouldn’t require him to do a damned thing.

    According to your “logic” he could simply ignore discovery demands, refuse to appear for a deposition, etc., all on the grounds that the SCOTUS ruling is unconstitutional.

    No, according to my logic, if he believes in good faith that he is eligible, he is obligated to prove it, since an errant declaration of ineligibility by a court would a miscarriage of justice it is in his power to prevent, and since it would poison public opinion against the office of the Presidency for no good reason.

    I would be interested to know if you can cite one recognized constitutional scholar or attorney who agrees with you.

    I would be interested to find any such person who can find fault with any of my arguments here.

  189. avatar
    Sef July 18, 2010 at 4:55 pm #

    yguy: I would be interested to find any such person who can find fault with any of my arguments here.

    They probably have a few other things to do than follow blogs.

  190. avatar
    Rickey July 18, 2010 at 6:01 pm #

    yguy:
    No, a declaration of standing by itself wouldn’t require him to do a damned thing.

    I never said that “by itself” it would require anything. But a SCOTUS ruling that found standing for a birther lawsuit would inevitably lead to Obama having to respond to discovery demands. Or he could follow your advice and defy SCOTUS.

    I would be interested to find any such person who can find fault with any of my arguments here.

    Thank you for admitting that you can’t cite a single Constitutional scholar or attorney who agrees with you.

  191. avatar
    Dave July 18, 2010 at 7:16 pm #

    yguy:
    Not really, you’re just trying to confuse the issue by drawing a distinction where there is no substantive difference.

    Actually, I’m trying to explain the issue, but clearly it’s slow going.

    The Supreme Court is clearly not the exclusive authority on the Constitution — certainly federal appeal courts also make such rulings. But their decisions can be appealed to the Supreme Court, which can overturn them. On the contrary, a decision of the Supreme Court can be quoted in any court of law as a controlling authority, and can’t be appealed anywhere. This is what makes them the final authority.

  192. avatar
    jamese777 July 18, 2010 at 8:50 pm #

    On the issue of granting standing to sue. Many of the Obama eligibility lawsuits do not name Obama as a defendant. Therefore a granting of standing wouldn’t require any action from Obama.
    For example, Ankeny et. al. v The Governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels was a lawsuit challenging Obama’s right to receive Indiana’s electoral votes. The suit did not name Obama as a defendant. The plaintiffs sued the Governor not Obama. If standing had been granted and if the plaintiffs had won, the Governor would have had to invalidate Obama’s electoral votes in that state and it might have become a model for other states to do the same thing.
    Other suits were Lightfoot v Bowen or Wrotnowski v Bysiewicz which went all the way to the Supreme Court.
    If Obama isn’t named as a defendant, there is no need for any response from Obama.

  193. avatar
    yguy July 18, 2010 at 10:07 pm #

    I find the moderation policy here unacceptable, so anyone who wants a piece of me can go here, here or here.

  194. avatar
    Joey July 18, 2010 at 11:55 pm #

    yguy: No, a declaration of standing by itself wouldn’t require him to do a damned thing. No, according to my logic, if he believes in good faith that he is eligible, he is obligated to prove it, since an errant declaration of ineligibility by a court would a miscarriage of justice it is in his power to prevent, and since it would poison public opinion against the office of the Presidency for no good reason.I would be interested to find any such person who can find fault with any of my arguments here.

    I see no “logic” in the above. In America no person, including a president is required to prove their innocence.
    The responsibility is on Obama’s political opposition to prove him ineligible, which they have failed to do in 69 attempts now.
    Six months before the election, Obama posted proof of his eligibility on the World Wide Web for any person on the planet with access to a computer to see. He has no other responsibilty and he didn’t really even have THAT responsibility since he met the state election requirements to get on the ballot in 50 states plus the District of Columbia.
    US District Court Judge Clay D.Land, a former conservative Republican state legislator in Georgia, nominated to the federal bench by George W. Bush put it very succinctly:
    “The Court observes that the President defeated seven opponents in a grueling campaign for his party’s nomination that lasted more than eighteen months and cost those opponents well over $300 million. Then The President faced a formidable opponent in the general election who received $84 million to conduct his general election campaign against the President. It would appear that ample opportunity existed for discovery of evidence that would support any contention that the President was not eligible for the office he sought. Furthermore, Congress is apparently satisfied that the President is qualified to serve. Congress has not instituted impeachment proceedings, and in fact, the House of Representatives in a broad bipartisan manner has rejected the suggestion that the President is not eligible for office. See H.R. Res. 593, 111the Cong. (2009)(commemorating, by vote of 378-0, the 50th anniversary of Hawaii’s statehood and stating. “the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961”).–US District Court Judge Clay D. Land in dismissing Rhodes v MacDonald, et. al., September 16, 2009.

  195. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) July 19, 2010 at 10:49 am #

    yguy: I find the moderation policy here unacceptable, so anyone who wants a piece of me can go here, here or here.

    Yes everyone go to talkrational since yguy has ran away from there several times to repeat the same BS here that he does over there

  196. avatar
    Bovril July 19, 2010 at 11:24 am #

    I posted before the LOOOOOOOOONG and sordid tale of darling Yguy at Talk Rational and how much he is loved…8-) an example fo the lurve and affection.

    http://talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=26091&highlight=yguy

  197. avatar
    sfjeff July 19, 2010 at 12:49 pm #

    Ciao Yguy. I am sure there are websites that will unquestioningly embrace your version of the truth.

    I actually think Yguy should be our official poster child of “Constitutional Fundamentalism”

  198. avatar
    Majority Will July 19, 2010 at 12:51 pm #

    “if he believes in good faith that he is eligible, he is obligated to prove it”

    But that’s not how the U.S. system of justice works no matter how much you wish it to be otherwise.

    “Unlike in Alice in Wonderland, simply saying something is so does not make it so.”
    – U.S. District Court Judge Clay Land

  199. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) July 19, 2010 at 11:17 pm #

    Bovril: I posted before the LOOOOOOOOONG and sordid tale of darling Yguy at Talk Rational and how much he is loved…8-) an example fo the lurve and affection.http://talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=26091&highlight=yguy

    aw man do you have anything better than that? That’s mainly that guy jerome responding

  200. avatar
    Bovril July 20, 2010 at 5:26 pm #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): aw man do you have anything better than that? That’s mainly that guy jerome responding

    Just go and a look over there, lots and lots and lots of comedy gold from Yguy…..8-)

    In any case I am of the very firm belief that Yguy and Jerome Da Gnome are actually the same individual…….>;-)

    Oh, I might add he doesn’t like it if you take him up on his very kind offer to chat to him at the other sites he linked to. Apparently I am a nasty miserable person……..and other words…….

  201. avatar
    G July 21, 2010 at 5:14 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Apparently I wasn’t the only one who found the fundamentalism analogy about the Tea Party. A listener to the same NPR story wrote this:

    I’m struck by the similarities between the Tea Party’s concept of the Constitution and the way fundamentalists treat the Bible. Each is considered a sacred text, handed down from God through a handful of prophets and treated as immutable and inviolable. And yet, in both cases, the texts are read very selectively. Bits and pieces are plucked out, always without context, to defend a rigid political position. I’d wager the two groups overlap a lot in membership, as well as mentality.

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128545979

    Just catching up here. Great blog post Dr. C and I concur completely. I’ve been saying this in personal conversations to others for quite some time. It is definitely the same strain of fundamentalist thinking and selective quote-mining. Both your article as well as the npr link are spot on.

  202. avatar
    dunstvangeet July 22, 2010 at 2:30 am #

    Well, if I wanted to selectively quote the Bible, I’d use Timothy 2:11-15. See how many of these people believe this (NIV translation):

    A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

    Gotta love selective Biblical Quotes. Next time you have someone (especially a woman) saying something about the infalibility of the Bible, mention Timothy 2:11-15. And if you’re a man, then say, “But women should learn in quietness and full submission. And women will be saved through childbearing.”

  203. avatar
    Sef July 22, 2010 at 7:37 am #

    dunstvangeet: Well, if I wanted to selectively quote the Bible, I’d use Timothy 2:11-15.See how many of these people believe this (NIV translation):
    Gotta love selective Biblical Quotes.Next time you have someone (especially a woman) saying something about the infalibility of the Bible, mention Timothy 2:11-15.And if you’re a man, then say, “But women should learn in quietness and full submission.And women will be saved through childbearing.”

    I want to know where they get their leather underwear. (that passage in the OT about mixing types of clothing)

  204. avatar
    Keith July 27, 2010 at 2:59 am #

    Just found this article from The Constitutional Accountability Center. This is number 4 in a series of briefs addressing Constitutional Issues.

    Setting the Record Straight: The Tea Party and the Constitutional Powers of the Federal Government

    A close look at the Tea Party’s version of the Constitution shows that it bears little resemblance to our actual Constitution, departs sharply from the Founders’ vision for America, and could threaten some of the constitutional values Americans cherish most.

  205. avatar
    Keith July 27, 2010 at 5:05 am #

    The CAC also discusses this stuff in a blog post series they call “Strange Brew”

    This one is on-topic about the Teabaggers attempts to redefine NBC.

    Strange Brew: Immigration and the Tea Party’s Efforts to Deny the Constitution’s Guarantee of Birthright Citizenship

  206. avatar
    Keith July 27, 2010 at 5:06 am #

    OK, my http was bad in the above post.

    http://theusconstitution.org/blog.history/?p=1853