Religious Fundamentalists

Wanna talk about politics, your favorite hockey team... vegetarian recipes?
ATX
Posts: 3384
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 10:59 am
Location: NOVA

Postby ATX_Skins » Thu Oct 13, 2011 7:40 pm

BigRedskinDaddy wrote:
ATX_Skins wrote:I really shouldn't have commented on that dudes post...

Oh well, let's do this!


By that dude, did you mean me?

RE: this thread, you guys are all a heck of a lot smarter than I am. I was educated reading the info about the Constitution and the amendments. Thanks.

But there is no way I'm getting into this one. Nuh-uh. :)


Yes, It was in bad taste, and showed no class for me to comment on your thread the way I did. I just really do not like Jesus talk but I should have just kept my opinions to myself. My apologies if you were at all offended. Again, very bad taste.
Support the troops, especially our snipers.

JSPB22
User avatar
Posts: 16161
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2004 9:03 am
Location: Location, LOCATION!

Postby Deadskins » Thu Oct 13, 2011 7:45 pm

I just think it's pointless to argue with you about a point where you won't even concede that judges and lawyers who've spent decades studying a subject might have more insight than a layman would. Kazoo said it was a strike, and I pointed out that it's not unanimous on that count. Then you fire back with nothing's unanimous and the 5th circuit thing. And you called me disingenuous. So I rolled my eyes.
Andre Carter wrote:Damn man, you know your football.


Hog Bowl IV Champion (2012)

Hail to the Redskins!

the 'mudge
Posts: 14640
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2004 10:15 pm
Location: Curmudgeon Corner, Maine

Postby Countertrey » Thu Oct 13, 2011 8:03 pm

Deadskins wrote:I just think it's pointless to argue with you about a point where you won't even concede that judges and lawyers who spent decades studying might have more insight than a layman would.


Among the stated goals of the framers was to create a document that any citizen could use. That is all that is needed.

That lawyers have twisted, perverted, distorted and creatively crafted interpretations do not change that.

Read the document. Understand that it was designed to mean what it says. You see the intent.

Commerce clause? completely distorted. Tenth amendment? Completely ignored. Not convenient for libs...
"That's a clown question, bro"
- - - - - - - - - - Bryce Harper, DC Statesman
"But Oz never did give nothing to the Tin Man
That he didn't, didn't already have"
- - - - - - - - - - Dewey Bunnell, America

Hog
User avatar
Posts: 580
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2008 8:12 am
Location: Hemet CA

Postby BigRedskinDaddy » Thu Oct 13, 2011 8:30 pm

ATX_Skins wrote:Yes, It was in bad taste, and showed no class for me to comment on your thread the way I did. I just really do not like Jesus talk but I should have just kept my opinions to myself. My apologies if you were at all offended. Again, very bad taste.


No apologies neeeded, my brother. I was in earnest when I said I appreciated your honesty. And you didn't offend me at all. Still, I thank you for you response. A classy post. We're all in this together my friend.

Cheers.

Sean
(BRD)
SB 17 - 22 - 26 - ??

kazoo
Posts: 10280
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: Kazmania

Postby KazooSkinsFan » Fri Oct 14, 2011 7:47 am

ATX_Skins wrote:
BigRedskinDaddy wrote:
ATX_Skins wrote:I really shouldn't have commented on that dudes post...

Oh well, let's do this!


By that dude, did you mean me?

RE: this thread, you guys are all a heck of a lot smarter than I am. I was educated reading the info about the Constitution and the amendments. Thanks.

But there is no way I'm getting into this one. Nuh-uh. :)


Yes, It was in bad taste, and showed no class for me to comment on your thread the way I did. I just really do not like Jesus talk but I should have just kept my opinions to myself. My apologies if you were at all offended. Again, very bad taste.


I'm not piling on, you admitted you made a mistake, so I consider that point closed. But as a point of clarification, you didn't need to keep your opinion to yourself, you could have just started another discussion. It was not what you said, it was where you said it
Groucho: Man does not control his own fate. The women in his life do that for him

Proverb: Failure is not falling down. Failure is not getting up again

Twain: A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way

kazoo
Posts: 10280
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: Kazmania

Postby KazooSkinsFan » Fri Oct 14, 2011 7:57 am

Deadskins wrote:I just think it's pointless to argue with you about a point where you won't even concede that judges and lawyers who've spent decades studying a subject might have more insight than a layman would. Kazoo said it was a strike, and I pointed out that it's not unanimous on that count. Then you fire back with nothing's unanimous and the 5th circuit thing. And you called me disingenuous. So I rolled my eyes.


It's pointless to argue with me when I don't concede my rights have to be explained to me by lawyers? When amendments are passed, they are passed by the legislatures that represent for better or worse the people, so they are in effect from the people.

When the lawyers start ruling based on the their own rulings and not what the people said, they are making law. When law does not come from the people, it is an abomination to the people.

Your contention that what power the people ceded to the Federal government has to be explained to them by lawyers because they are too stupid to understand it and the federal government (judges) will tell us what we ceded meant, you end up with the ridiculous system we have today which constantly erodes the people's rights as government confiscates more and more power by re-interpreting the people's words and justify it with their own ruling they have the right to do it.

You should seriously think about the question that when rulings create law and are not based on power ceded directly by the people, by what authority to they arise and why should a free man respect that? I am consistent in that I do not want the courts to rule that what I believe should be law any more then what I think should not be the law. As pathetic as the legislatures are, at least they are answerable to the people.
Groucho: Man does not control his own fate. The women in his life do that for him

Proverb: Failure is not falling down. Failure is not getting up again

Twain: A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way

cappster
Posts: 2984
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 10:25 am
Location: Humanist, at your service.

Postby Cappster » Fri Oct 14, 2011 8:44 am

I will say this: Ever notice how important it is to have Judicial appointments by either Democrats or Republicans? Given a situation where everything was non-bias, it wouldn't matter if it were a republican or a democrats that did the appointing of a judge. That is not the case, however, as each judge is affected by their own personal views even when/if they strive to be the up most objective person.
Sapphire AMD Radeon R9 280x, FTW!

Hog Bowl II Champion (2010)

Hog
User avatar
Posts: 5220
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 2:03 pm
Location: Richmond, VA

Postby cvillehog » Fri Oct 14, 2011 9:15 am

KazooSkinsFan wrote:I'm not piling on, you admitted you made a mistake, so I consider that point closed. But as a point of clarification, you didn't need to keep your opinion to yourself, you could have just started another discussion. It was not what you said, it was where you said it


+1

kazoo
Posts: 10280
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: Kazmania

Postby KazooSkinsFan » Fri Oct 14, 2011 9:15 am

Cappster wrote:That is not the case, however, as each judge is affected by their own personal views even when/if they strive to be the up most objective person.


That is the problem regarding the Constitution. They rule based on what they want it to mean, not what it said, which is little. Republican or Democrat when they do that they are wrong. I don't need a lawyer to tell me when rulings are clearly not supportable in the document they are ruling on.
Groucho: Man does not control his own fate. The women in his life do that for him

Proverb: Failure is not falling down. Failure is not getting up again

Twain: A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way

Hog
User avatar
Posts: 5220
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 2:03 pm
Location: Richmond, VA

Postby cvillehog » Fri Oct 14, 2011 9:22 am

KazooSkinsFan wrote:
Cappster wrote:That is not the case, however, as each judge is affected by their own personal views even when/if they strive to be the up most objective person.


That is the problem regarding the Constitution. They rule based on what they want it to mean, not what it said, which is little. Republican or Democrat when they do that they are wrong. I don't need a lawyer to tell me when rulings are clearly not supportable in the document they are ruling on.


Any judge that puts political considerations above legal considerations should be impeached.

cappster
Posts: 2984
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 10:25 am
Location: Humanist, at your service.

Postby Cappster » Fri Oct 14, 2011 10:00 am

KazooSkinsFan wrote:
Cappster wrote:That is not the case, however, as each judge is affected by their own personal views even when/if they strive to be the up most objective person.


That is the problem regarding the Constitution. They rule based on what they want it to mean, not what it said, which is little. Republican or Democrat when they do that they are wrong. I don't need a lawyer to tell me when rulings are clearly not supportable in the document they are ruling on.


That is the problem with humans in general. We always inference something differently whether we choose to do it or do it subliminally. It's a human character flaw that exists in all of us.
Sapphire AMD Radeon R9 280x, FTW!

Hog Bowl II Champion (2010)

JSPB22
User avatar
Posts: 16161
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2004 9:03 am
Location: Location, LOCATION!

Postby Deadskins » Fri Oct 14, 2011 10:57 am

To Kazoo and CT:
I was not contradicting any of your positions on the Constitution, or any laws, acts, or rulings in general. I was simply stating that your statements of fact can not be taken as fact just because you say so. I happen to agree with many of the points you make, but just not the arguments you are making to support them.
Andre Carter wrote:Damn man, you know your football.


Hog Bowl IV Champion (2012)

Hail to the Redskins!

FanFromAnnapolis
Posts: 11080
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2004 6:01 pm
Location: on the bandwagon

Postby Irn-Bru » Fri Oct 14, 2011 11:27 am

cvillehog wrote:
KazooSkinsFan wrote:
Cappster wrote:That is not the case, however, as each judge is affected by their own personal views even when/if they strive to be the up most objective person.


That is the problem regarding the Constitution. They rule based on what they want it to mean, not what it said, which is little. Republican or Democrat when they do that they are wrong. I don't need a lawyer to tell me when rulings are clearly not supportable in the document they are ruling on.


Any judge that puts political considerations above legal considerations should be impeached.


The dominant legal philosophy today is legal positivism, so given the climate I'm not sure how it could be any different.
"Last year I thought we'd win it all. This year I know we will." - Rex Ryan, on what would become the 8-8 2011 Jets

"Dream team." - Vince Young, on what would become the 8-8 2011 Eagles

the 'mudge
Posts: 14640
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2004 10:15 pm
Location: Curmudgeon Corner, Maine

Postby Countertrey » Fri Oct 14, 2011 11:35 am

Irn-Bru wrote:
cvillehog wrote:
KazooSkinsFan wrote:
Cappster wrote:That is not the case, however, as each judge is affected by their own personal views even when/if they strive to be the up most objective person.


That is the problem regarding the Constitution. They rule based on what they want it to mean, not what it said, which is little. Republican or Democrat when they do that they are wrong. I don't need a lawyer to tell me when rulings are clearly not supportable in the document they are ruling on.


Any judge that puts political considerations above legal considerations should be impeached.


The dominant legal philosophy today is legal positivism, so given the climate I'm not sure how it could be any different.


The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
As much as Democrats and liberal judges ignore the existence of this single statement, it exists... and, unless overwritten by another amendment, those of us who believe in the supremacy of the Constitution have an expectation that it will have the power of law.

If the Constitution does not tell the Federal government that it MAY... then it MAY NOT. Seems pretty simple, no?
"That's a clown question, bro"
- - - - - - - - - - Bryce Harper, DC Statesman
"But Oz never did give nothing to the Tin Man
That he didn't, didn't already have"
- - - - - - - - - - Dewey Bunnell, America

FanFromAnnapolis
Posts: 11080
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2004 6:01 pm
Location: on the bandwagon

Postby Irn-Bru » Fri Oct 14, 2011 11:39 am

I don't think the judges you have in mind think they are appropriating new powers. (Or at least they don't most of the time.) They usually see their ruling as deriving from some broad interpretation of a statement. (I.e., the commerce clause.)
"Last year I thought we'd win it all. This year I know we will." - Rex Ryan, on what would become the 8-8 2011 Jets

"Dream team." - Vince Young, on what would become the 8-8 2011 Eagles

Return to The Lounge