Quoting dee1959jay:

Quote:
No, I can't. But what I CAN do is give you a green one to compensate...

And that gets you one for abusing the rating system.

Well in that case, it looks like I'll be getting one soon too, cos I've just redressed the balance! 

Quoting Rifter:

Quote:
The Constitution is not clear only to those who are desperate to find something in it to justify whatever agenda they have.  In actuality, the First Amend. is talking about political speech, not common day to day speech as most people think.  Oh, and "speech" does not mean just verbalizing, it also covers written discourse.

If you honestly believe that it's that clear you haven't read many SC decisions.  Once something has gotten to that level the issue is already confused as hell.  And as far as speech goes... well, that's a matter of interpretation.  One on which both sides agree at the moment, but it's certainly not in the plain text.

Quoting Rifter:

Quote:
The courts are not supposed to "create" legislation when they interpret the Constitution.  There are no penumbra to be found in that document, despite what most liberals will tell you.  That is why I said I am a strict constructionist as far as interpretation goes.  Roe v. Wade is just such a case of a penumbra, or a finding, in the Constitution that simply doesn't exist.  It is more properly a state's rights issue, and the USSC should never have accepted that case in the first place.

States don't have the right to abrogate constitutional rights and constitutional questions are what the SC is all about.  (You may WISH it was up the states, but it didn't turn out that way.)

Roe doesn't CREATE legilation, it found existing legiation to be unconstitutional.  That's a big disctinction.  The reasoning is seriously flawed, but what they did was not creating anything.  If you want to talk about creating, a better example would have been forced bussing.  The impetst thei decision was more firmly based on the constitution that Roe, but the order itself was a power grab.  The remedy should have been left to congress.  I think that overal it had a posiitive impact, but I am as uncomfortable with that sort of power grab as I am with the currrent president's.

Quoting Rifter:

Quote:
Lest you think this is just my opinion, let me assure you that it is based on the contemporaneous writings of many scholarly men who knew the Founders and were conversant with the issues of that time.  One of my most prized books is a copy of "On the Constitution of the United States" by Justice Joseph Story, first printed in 1840, as well as "The Federalist Papers" and others of the period.  If you read those books and understand them, the Constitution suddenly becomes crystal clear, and none of the liberal nonsense about a living document we hear today holds water.

Oh, I don't think it's just your opinion Rifter.  I think a lot of people wrongly believe that. 

Terms like "living document" and "strict constitutionalist" are meaninless terms siezed by opposing philosophies to try and frame the debate.  Both sides have written rediculously bad (and broad) decisions that meet their personal philosophy rather than a realistic reading of the text.  As the constitution is not particularly explicit that game will continue.  I have little doubt that either the living document people OR the strict constitutionalists could find Waldo in there if they looked hard enough.

That's why I prefer the court (and congress/executive) divided.  The damage it can wreak is minimal and with lifetime appointments the damage bad appointments do continues for a disproportionate amount of time.

Quoting Rifter:

Quote:
and we will end up following Canada and Britain into mediocrity.

What the hell? Out the the three countries: UK, Canada and the US I know which one is at the bottom of the list of places where I'd like to live! 
I'll give you a clue in case it's too difficult for you to work out: it begins with a U and it's not the UK!

At least we're not stuck 50 years in the past and still worrying about Reds under the beds!

Quoting Rifter:

Quote:
If Obama wins this election, you will see America lurch toward the left and become far more socialist than ever before, and we will end up following Canada and Britain into mediocrity.

The counties that I think come the closest to the idea of socialism are Denmark, Sweden and Norway. Numerous surveys have shown that these countires have a very high living standard and are being considered the best places in the world to live.

BTW I do not see any reason why you, Rifter, seconded by Skip, found it neccessary to insult 2 entire countries with your post.

That's an insult? Wow, talk about thin skins. If that's an insult, I can only say excuuuuuuuuuse me for not being PC.

Skip

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
That's an insult? Wow, talk about thin skins. If that's an insult, I can only say excuuuuuuuuuse me for not being PC.

Skip

This from someone who thinks:
As I was quoting "goblinsdoitall", this is a very strange claim, or are you claiming that "goblinsdoitall" is your sock-puppet?

is an insult! 

North:

Your comment is not worth addressing because you clearly don't have a clue, and frankly if i were Goblins, I would nail you to the wall for it.

Skip