Why I Won't Vote for a Democrat

The Constitution has to be a living document as times, attitudes and needs change. The original framers could not account for how society changes with the advance of technology, with the advance of science in general. The amendment banning slavery is an example of how it is a living document and must change to deal with shifting attitudes and needs. Many conservatives right now are working on an amendment to codify marraige as a union between a man and a woman. Both sides are trying to continually mold the document to their desires.

The use of courts to determine legality of laws and such is necessary as you can not account for every variation and situation a law may cover. Until recently we didn't have laws on the books specifically dealing with Intellectual Property and Digital Rights, the courts had to apply existing laws to deal with the new situations. The world doesn't exist in black and white, but in shades of gray, you can't apply laws like that as they ignore circumstance and changing times.

The constitution has very specific guidelines on how to amend it so that ti can be a "living" document. Democracy involves having society, the people, vote for changes to that document. Not appointed judges to act as our overlords. You cannot compare a court applying an existing law to cover say intellectual property and the court simply making up a new law based on their personal opinion.

I think it's humorous how some deify the founding fathers. They were a bunch of old guys living in THE SEVENTEEN HUNDREDS!!! They were undoubtedly very intelligent, noble, well meaning people, but they were... are you ready... human ! (gasps of astonishment)

The Code of Hammurabi was written some FOUR THOUSAND years ago. And... ???

Context.

Ape law is meant to be changed.

That you take a strict approach to interpreting documents written three centuries ago is fine and dandy - I respect your right to do so, but.. others [obviously] disagree. That is the nice thing about freedom and democracy. Holding them up as God-given and infalliable is, I think, misguided.

Dig the pattern beneath the pattern.

Over and Out

BAM

etc.

Brad,

You're right, IP and Digital Rights is not a good analogy to constitutional amendments, I apologize, it was just a quick example of how courts are an important part of the law making/evolving process. Constitutional issues should be resolved by the Supreme Court when possible IMO. Often times though, courts don't make new laws as they do refute the constitutionality of existing laws, or deem that the law does not properly apply to a given situation (which happens, no law is perfect and there are always exceptions that you have to account for).

Without the courts having the ability to refute laws, you give congress a free pass to do as they like. Many laws passed today are compound, they have dozens of individual rules and issues, and it could be a matter of just one of those parts being deemed unacceptable. You could have a law with 100 individual rules in it, where one of those rules is absolutely horrible and should never be enforced, but the other 99 are absolutely amazing pieces of legislative work. Should the courts just toss the entire law, or should they refute the individual bit? I'm not saying I have the answers to these questions, I'm more just tossing them out there. Our system is buckling under it's own weight, the intent of our founding fathers for what they wanted from the government is being lost/twisted/overshadowed by people on both sides of the political spectrum. I think the role courts play in interpreting law is in many cases a necessary evil.

I think we have here a problem with literalists and interpretationalists. Unfortunately for you Brad, you depend on a right, guaranteed by the courts, but not spelled out in the constitution. The Founding fathers had no idea there would be such a thing as computer code, which, therefore should not be protected by copywrite laws. Fortunately for you, the court disagrees and it is, therefore you get to make money off it. Funny how some people rely on loose interpretations when it serves them, and strict ones when it doesn't. I'm not meaning this as a personal attack Brad, you just seem a little hypocritical here.

Cheers

a. New Jersey’s law prohibits electing any candidate who did not register before the stated date. During the last senatorial voting it was violated quoting that it was the people’s right. They choose a retired candidate and he won. He is sitting as a senator today.

So? If it was illegal the Republicans should have pressed charges.

b. Socialist leaning senator from Minnesota was killed in a plane crush. Minnesota has the same law that candidates must adhere to the prescribed registration date. Again they chose a retired candidate and this time the people know better. He lost. Again the liberals violated the law quoting the same reason – people’s right.

Normal election laws usually don't apply in the case of the death of a canidate. This is usually due to a truncated election schedule. That's in the few states that have elections after deaths, some states allow their governor to appoint a successor.

c. Massachusetts Supreme Court created a law that would permit gays to marry. However in California the state constitution prohibits marriage unless it is a man and a woman. California liberals lead by the Mayor of San Francisco started issuing marriage licenses to gays. As of this writing over 3000 gay marriages had been perform. The reason – the constitution as it is written violates gay rights

The Massachusetts Supreme Court didn't "create" a law, they struck down one, thereby allowing Gays to marry, this is something the courts are allowed to do by the way. The California constitution has nothing to do with Massachusetts law, since they are different states. Assuming you meant that to be two different points I'll deal with the second part. The California constitution does not prohibit any kind of marriage. A California Law does that. The Mayor of San Francisco is arguing that the LAW violates the State Constitution.

But my civics teacher, Mrs Everett said that only the legislative branch of government can make laws, the courts and the executive branches can not make laws. So why are the courts making laws like abortion, women’s rights, environment, etc. Granted that the courts interpret the constitution a different way, should that interpretation be given to the legislative branch, have them debate it then have them enact it into law, before it becomes a law?

Obviously you weren't quite paying attention to Mrs. Everett because it is the duty of the Legislative branch to make laws, it is the duty of the Executive Branch to enforce laws and it is the duty of the judicial branch to interpret the constitution and see whether those laws violate the constitution. They can advise the legislative branch before a law is enacted, but let's think honestly here, how many congressman would give a flying hoot?

Cheers

I don't deify the founding fathers.

What do the founding fathers have to do with the mechanism to amend the constitution?

I find it amusing how people deify appointed judges. Personally, I prefer to let democracy do its thing.

Without the courts having the ability to refute laws, you give congress a free pass to do as they like. Many laws passed today are compound, they have dozens of individual rules and issues, and it could be a matter of just one of those parts being deemed unacceptable. You could have a law with 100 individual rules in it, where one of those rules is absolutely horrible and should never be enforced, but the other 99 are absolutely amazing pieces of legislative work. Should the courts just toss the entire law, or should they refute the individual bit? I'm not saying I have the answers to these questions, I'm more just tossing them out there. Our system is buckling under it's own weight, the intent of our founding fathers for what they wanted from the government is being lost/twisted/overshadowed by people on both sides of the political spectrum. I think the role courts play in interpreting law is in many cases a necessary evil.

I am in favor of the courts being able to rule things unconstitutional as long as they can do so in a very very clear cut way.

For example, sodomy laws are clearly unconstutitonal because what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home is not the government's business. It is also not society's business as what they do has no impact on society.

On the other hand, Roe vs. Wade (I'm pro-choice btw) is an example of the courts overstepping their bounds. The constitution clearly spells out that if it's not explicitly spelled out in the constitution, then it's up to the people to decide what to do via their duly elected legislatures. The courts used the same reasoning as they did with the ruling against sodomy laws. But in this case, it wasn't clear cut at all. I.e. it's debateable whether this is covered under a woman's right to privacy. As a result, it should be up to the people to decide the issue.  Just because I'm in favor of abortion rights doesn't make me blind to an example of where democracy was undercut by appointed judges.

If people want something, whether that be gay marriage or legal drugs or whatever, they have a duty to convince the majority of the worthiness of their cause and try to get the legislature to enact laws that support their position. They shouldn't rely on the courts to divine some hidden meaning out of the constitution.  Like I said, if it's not blatantly in the constitution, judges shouldn't be reading things into it.

The judicial branch was created, in part to protect the minority. Something Democracy doesn't do.

Cheers

Zoomba

Your statement:

The use of the courts to determine legality and such is necessary as you cannot account for every variation and situation a law may cover. Until recently we didn’t have laws on the books specifically dealing with Intellectual Proper and Digital Rights, the courts had to apply existing laws to deal with the new situation. The world doesn’t exist in black and white, but in shade of gray, you can’t apply laws like that as they ignore circumstances and changing times.

My reply:

I am sorry to disagree with your assertion. Regardless what the situation is - the court or the judicial branch does not have the constitutional authority to make (repeat) make or enact laws. Period. If they do - it is wrong. It is legally wrong. A wrong can not be called right. This is a exclusive of the legislative branch. The constitution spells out for each branch each span of responsibility, control and authority.

If the law was an object, the judicial branch can define the features, their applications, their benefits, etc, but the responsibility of enacting, publishing and disseminating such laws to all citizens belong to the legislative branch. Implementing these laws so they are faithfully carried and adhered to is the realm of the executive branch with the “attorney general” the big “kahuna.”

This is true regardless of the circumstances. The constitution delineates the judicial branch the function to interpret (repeat) interpret the laws. The judicial branch is the most minor of all the branches because no one (repeat) no one in the judicial branch is elected by the people. All of them (pardon the expression) are politically appointed.

If you find me wrong, show me what part of the constitution does it spell out that the judicial branch has the authority to enact, create and implement a law.


Merriam – Webster defines “interpret” as follows:

interpret
\In*ter"pret\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Interpreted; p. pr. & vb. n. Interpreting.] [F. interpr[^e]ter, L. interpretari, p. p. interpretatus, fr. interpre? interpeter, agent, negotiator; inter between + (prob.) the root of pretium price. See Price.] 1. To explain or tell the meaning of; to expound; to translate orally into intelligible or familiar language or terms; to decipher; to define; -- applied esp. to language, but also to dreams, signs, conduct, mysteries, etc.; as, to interpret the Hebrew language to an Englishman; to interpret an Indian speech.

Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. --Matt. i. 23.

And Pharaoh told them his dreams; but there was none that could interpret them unto Pharaoh. --Gen. xli. 8.

2. To apprehend and represent by means of art; to show by illustrative representation; as, an actor interprets the character of Hamlet; a musician interprets a sonata; an artist interprets a landscape.

Syn: To translate; explain; solve; render; expound; elucidate; decipher; unfold; unravel.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

This is the problem of our society. We cannot even agree what is the meaning of a single word. We use the same constitution but liberals interpret it according to their playbook or agenda. I have been dealing liberals for a long time and they pretend that they are the authority on everything. They are the only ones who can interpret the constitution. Liberal “hanchos” don’t give a hoot to any individual. Each individual is a helpless creature and without the government, an individual is nothing. If you put a liberal in a defensive position, they resort to name-calling. Example - when the head of the DNC says, “Bush is AWOL”. All the rest - under the liberal umbrella replied “Amen”. Such extreme and blind loyalty should not exist in a free society. It is ironic that no liberal can defy the statement of another liberal. Isn’t this reminiscent of the commie cells that exist among us in the 1950s?

See yuh!

Aconservative

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

jeblackstar

Your statement:

Obviously you weren't quite paying attention to Mrs. Everett because it is the duty of the Legislative branch to make laws, it is the duty of the Executive Branch to enforce laws and it is the duty of the judicial branch to interpret the constitution and see whether those laws violate the constitution. They can advise the legislative branch before a law is enacted, but let's think honestly here, how many congressmen would give a flying hoot?

My reply:

Are you implying that the legislative branch of government is incapable of doing what they are supposed to do? With 435 congresspersons and 100 senators, all representing you and me and the rest of us, voted by all citizens through the elective process, that make up the legislative branch, are they knowledgeably inferior to enact laws than the un-elected, politically selected judges? I am 100 per cents sure that the representative and senators are better equipped to represent you and create laws of the land than the ladies and gentlemen that sits in the judiciary.

Your statement:

The judicial branch was created, in part to protect the minority. Something Democracy doesn't do.

My Reply:

I am a minority. The judicial branch does not and did not protect me. As a minority, I am at the lowest rung in the ethnic ladder. English is my second language. I do not have anybody of my race or ethnic origin representing me in any scope of government. I didn’t need affirmative action to shelter me in school. I didn’t need any activist. I was on my own but I was not alone. The government gave me the opportunity and pointed the way. That’s all I needed. It was not easy. It was hard work. But I was free to face my challenges and innovate solutions. I didn’t expect the government to do it for me. I was responsible for all my actions. I would be insulted and dehumanized if they did that. The government pointed where the tools are. They were free but some were not. But the tools (opportunities) were there.

If I was at the back of the line, I didn’t cry foul. I imitated, I followed, I learned what the others are doing and I said to myself you can do it too. And the nice thing in this country, the country that I choose, your country and mine, was nobody dared to stop me. To me that is freedom. What we seem to forget is - there is no country in the world that provides more freedom to its citizens than the United States. Why do I know this? I have worked for the US government for over 20 years all of them overseas.

Yet, many want more freedom. We already have freedom up to our ears. We need more help. We have more opportunities than even the riches in some countries. We lived better than 90% of all the world’s population.

Instead of being crybabies we should let our government do it’s prime job mandated by the constitution - our livelihood and protection so we can continue to enjoy the blessings that we have. Instead some decry the patriot act – the only tool that the government has to ensure that no more Americans will be blown to pieces like what happened on 9/11.

To the socialists – freedom is everything is free. You don’t have to do a thing, the government will spoon-fed you. You end up with the disease called “dependent syndrome”.

To the conservatives – freedom is free to do what you want without anybody (specially the government) telling you what to do or what you can’t do. It’s your choice. Use that thing between your two ears.

If the prize is up the hill you can get a Hummer to attain it or walk on your knees to achieve it. The prize will still be there.

Have a nice day!

Aconservative

aconservative:

...they resort to name-calling... It is ironic that no liberal can defy the statement of another liberal. Isn’t this reminiscent of the commie cells that exist among us in the 1950s?

aconservative, you never really answered the point jet made:

The Massachusetts Supreme Court didn't "create" a law, they struck down one, thereby allowing Gays to marry.

are there no provisions for when a candidate dies mid-election like with wellstone? or does it just go, "other guy wins by default".

As a minority, I am at the lowest rung in the ethnic ladder...I do not have anybody of my race or ethnic origin representing me in any scope of government...

now you got me curious as to what is considered the bottom of the ethnic ladder. rich florida cuban gun-owner green party guy? fat gay black republican? old handicapped transexual french-canadian expatriate with a cleft?

Russelmz2 welcome –

It doesn’t really matter if the Massachusetts Supreme Court struck down a law allowing gays to marry. It will still require the Massachusetts legislature to enact a law. And when it becomes a legal instrument, how will it be implemented the “sneaky petes” from taking advantage of it.

Let’s discuss about gays in general – a group protected by the government in order to “level the playing field”,

Answer me this simple question.

How do you identify who is gay?

Anybody can say that s/he is or not gay. You cannot point a gay person in a crowd just like any other minority group. Or can you? Please tell me.

Assuming that the law becomes legal in everybody’s eyes, how can you identify that one or both of the couple being married are really gays?

With regards to your other questions, I am not a rich florida cuban gun-owner green party guy? fat gay black republican? old handicapped transexual french-canadian expatriate with a cleft? I am just an old ex-Kennedy Democrat who believes in his words – “Ask not what your country can do for you – but what you can do for your country?”

Have a good one!

aconservative

Why do you have to identify who is gay? When a man and a woman get married, they don't have to prove that they're straight; they just have to be one male and one female. Why do you suddenly have to quiz the gay guys?

Very simple -

Because of the freebies that the government has in store if you are gay. One university has a program of giving grant to gays. Grants are free money. What prevents any Tom, Dick and Harry to masquerade as gays in order to take advantage of these grants.

Anybody can be gay, because nobody can identify who is a real gay.

Same thing with gay marriages. It's the freebies that are at stake. Remember the "level the playing field mentality". It can only be implemented with cash dolled out to the minority group trying to get even. Remove the freebies and the incentive will be gone.

As the freebies increase, the number of gays increases. This is a fact.

So how can you identify a legitimate gay?

aconservative

Same thing with gay marriages. It's the freebies that are at stake. Remember the "level the playing field mentality". It can only be implemented with cash dolled out to the minority group trying to get even. Remove the freebies and the incentive will be gone.

Have you ever been married? The reason two people are supposed to get married is because they love each other, not because of economic benefits. Do you know a lot of straight people who get married for the tax benefits? If you do, I'm fairly certain they are in the minority. As to how to identify a "legitimate gay", as a professor I see quite a bit of this as students come out. There are very few external positives to coming out. People mock you and avoid you, parent's cut you off. Some even disown them. Friends will no longer want to "hang out" because you might hit on them. There have been a number, a large number, of documented cases of violence on people who have come out.

As the freebies increase, the number of gays increases. This is a fact.

How is this fact? What evidence do you have? Sure, I know some people older than me who pretended to be gay to get out of military service in Vietnam, but damn few took that route. Again, what freebies? A few grants? Do you have any idea how few grants there are? Plus, due to the fact most states have non-discrimination laws, those grants have to be made available to everyone. It's the same deal if a man applies for a grant supposedly for women only at a Public college. Sure there are private institutions that have private grants, but there are many more for people who are christian, and you don't see the number of christians sky-rocketing. Your arguement is full of the stuff that fills my baby's diapers.

Cheer

aconservative:

Same thing with gay marriages. It's the freebies that are at stake.

did you ever see that episode of will and grace where the gay guy is trying to prove his competition in the gay chorus(matt damon) is actually a straight guy? grace: "you want me to IN him?"

jeblackstar

I am not convinced that your definition of gays would stand in court. Since (I believe) you are both a professor and a lawyer, if you were asked by the Massachusetts and California legislatures to write a definition of what is a gay? How would you word it?

russellmz2

Please let me hear also your definition of gay that would stand in court?

You have to excuse me for not saying more - I am in Las Vegas now and I have to attend to why I am here.

Wish Me Luck

aconservative

P. S. By the way - my hotel room is a freebie.

With liberals like Jeblackstar attempting to indoctrinate impressionable minds from his ivory tower of academe, it is a miracle that any of his students have a clue about the history of Korea, Iran, Iraq, US, China, Taiwan, Vietnam, France, Germany, Israel, Arabia, India-Pakistan or our own role in American History the past Century.

The Democratic party is definately not the same party that it was back in the JFK days. I think that becoming pro abortion was the big turning point for them. At least looking back, thats the way it seems to me. Alot of people changed partys when this happened. I've heard others saying that Joe Liberman was the last of the great democratic party leaders of yesterday. Democrats today wouldn't know a great party leader if he bit them in the arse. They seem to be grasping at straws. Just wait until they see what happens to their pick come November. GCJ

I am not convinced that your definition of gays would stand in court. Since (I believe) you are both a professor and a lawyer, if you were asked by the Massachusetts and California legislatures to write a definition of what is a gay? How would you word it?

My definition for what is "Gay" is that it doesn't matter whether you are gay or not. In fact, making the distinction violates the fourteenth amendment right that prevents discrimination due to position.

With liberals like Jeblackstar attempting to indoctrinate impressionable minds from his ivory tower of academe, it is a miracle that any of his students have a clue about the history of Korea, Iran, Iraq, US, China, Taiwan, Vietnam, France, Germany, Israel, Arabia, India-Pakistan or our own role in American History the past Century.

First off, it's an ivory tower of academia, not academe. Second, I share my "tower", i.e. office, with another professor since we are both fairly new to the staff. Second, just because I don't subscribe to your hick newsletters which refuse to show beliefs contrary to your own in no way means I'm lacking information on any of the countries you just listed. In fact, any one of my students could probably give you the history of those countries back to before their creation better than you could. Also, knowing the reasons for a war, ie Vietnam or Korea is very important. You don't know them, your previous posts have proven that. Do you read books? Do you know what one looks like? I can recommend a few dozen on each of those countries to give you the "true" role of each of those countries, including America, in the last century. Besides, why do list America twice? Once as US and the second time as "our history". And more importantly AR-15, if you know better, why the heck am I drawing crappy professor's pay and you're not? I teach because I believe in the Truth, I'll admit the Truth is biased by my own beliefs, but from what you imply, and outright state, my beliefs have twisted the truth around 180 degrees. If you can point out, with document evidence where I have been wrong, I'll apologize, assuming I haven't already. I even provided, in your little rant on "Hanoi Jane" evidence which condemnded her, but also mitigated her. There are three sides to every story, your side, their side and the truth. If you can see both sides, maybe you can see the truth, but right now you see only your own, and for that I pity you.

Cheers

India-Pakistan

Also, at least for the better part of the last century India and Pakistan have been two different nations. Of course it's doubtful that you knew that the two countries actually worked together to throw the british out.

Oh, I'm still waiting for a reply from AR-15 or aconservative.

Cheers

Jeblackstar do not throw a conniption fit! I am sorry if I offended you by stereotyping you as a liberal professor who would reconstruct history, and present a distorted interpretation of events to students. You have always been a gentleman in presenting your liberal views, I simply disagree with them, and you have personal beliefs and thoughts, not like one of these “Bush’s resume” copy and paste drones. I do not live in the Ozark regions, nor am I missing teeth, or shooting critters from my porch. I realize that I now have a liberal professor stalking my writings seeking to pick apart everything I say and put red X’s all over the place, I must digress, I have read at least one book, you could grade it if you like Prof. Blackstar.

The Quiet American

The judicial branch was created, in part to protect the minority. Something Democracy doesn't do.

No it wasn't. The CONSTITUTION was designed to protect the minority. To protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority.

The judicial branche is designed to INTERPRET the law. That's it.

The judicial branche is designed to INTERPRET the law.

Yes, exactly, interpret whether the law is constitutional or not.

Cheers

aconservative:

wait a second. how do we know all these "heterosexual" couples walking around are actually heretosexual? what if a pair of lesbians and a pair of gay guys decide to pretend to be married for the tax benefits, "married couples" deals, and free wedding gifts?

do you get the feeling that this is a silly idea? that's the feeling i got when i heard your "pretend to be gay so they can get benefits" theory.