| Welcome to the home of some of the Washington Redskins' most ravenous fans. If this is your first visit, please read our rules and regulations. You must register before you can access all of the forums, and to use all the board's features and options; members also enjoy fewer advertisements. |
| Author |
Message |
ATX_Skins
ATX
Joined: 29 Oct 2008
Posts: 3322
Location: NOVA
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2011 7:40 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| 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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Deadskins
JSPB22
Joined: 02 Jul 2004
Posts: 14724
Location: Location, LOCATION!
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2011 7:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Countertrey
the 'mudge
Joined: 09 Jan 2004
Posts: 12771
Location: Curmudgeon Corner, Maine
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2011 8:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 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... |
|
| Back to top |
|
BigRedskinDaddy
Hog
Joined: 24 Aug 2008
Posts: 505
Location: Hemet CA
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2011 8:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 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) |
|
| Back to top |
|
KazooSkinsFan
kazoo
Joined: 05 Sep 2004
Posts: 10021
Location: Kazmania
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2011 7:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 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 |
|
| Back to top |
|
Link
|
|
 |
KazooSkinsFan
kazoo
Joined: 05 Sep 2004
Posts: 10021
Location: Kazmania
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2011 7:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Cappster
cappster
Joined: 25 Jun 2006
Posts: 2876
Location: Humanist, at your service.
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2011 8:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
cvillehog
Hog
Joined: 05 Aug 2004
Posts: 5218
Location: Richmond, VA
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2011 9:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 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 |
|
| Back to top |
|
KazooSkinsFan
kazoo
Joined: 05 Sep 2004
Posts: 10021
Location: Kazmania
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2011 9:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
cvillehog
Hog
Joined: 05 Aug 2004
Posts: 5218
Location: Richmond, VA
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2011 9:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Link
|
|
|
Cappster
cappster
Joined: 25 Jun 2006
Posts: 2876
Location: Humanist, at your service.
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2011 10:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Deadskins
JSPB22
Joined: 02 Jul 2004
Posts: 14724
Location: Location, LOCATION!
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2011 10:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Irn-Bru
FanFromAnnapolis
Joined: 20 Mar 2004
Posts: 10628
Location: on the bandwagon
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2011 11:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Countertrey
the 'mudge
Joined: 09 Jan 2004
Posts: 12771
Location: Curmudgeon Corner, Maine
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2011 11:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 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. |
| Quote: | | 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? |
|
| Back to top |
|
Irn-Bru
FanFromAnnapolis
Joined: 20 Mar 2004
Posts: 10628
Location: on the bandwagon
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2011 11:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 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.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
Link
|
|
|
| Page 4 of 5 | All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
