That evil ACLU...

[CAPFlyer]

There is a difference between interpret and create. No where in the Constitution is there any wording that can be interpreted as "right to privacy", the central argument in the Roe v Wade case. While I may not dispute the right of a woman to choose (I do on by religious beliefs), I do believe that the government, the duly elected government, should make that decision, not appointed judges. By the judges making the decision they did, they abrogated the right of the states to make that decision as it was one that was (and still should be) reserved to the states as it's not contained within any amendment, just as the whole issue of Gay Marriage should be decided by the states or by Constitutional Amendment, not by a law passed by the Congress.

As for the 2000 Election, there were a lot of things that were done wrong, starting with the fact that the original contesting of the vote counts by a known partisan operative, the calling of voters with leading questions by a known partisan advertising agency with information to contact a single representative who was not even the representative whom was responsible for the districts in question, the lies about the "discarded" voting cards (they were all thrown away after the voters realized their error and those persons did recast a valid vote), to the handling of the case throughout the court system. The end result was multiple recounts of the votes and the result was the same - Gore lost the state by anywhere from 100 to 3000 votes.

[Broken-Wrench]

Where was the ACLU when those kids were down in Jena making nooses... That's freedom of speech or was the cause not perverted or freaky enough.

[T2 Ernie]

You've not run me off, I simply meant that I wouldn't keep saying the same thing over & over (which is standard military protocol when someone doesn't "get it" )

But you hit on a point I'd like to expound on:

I think the difference is that in America we have a history of fighting for each other. When one person gets beat down and needs help, we believe in fighting for him. In my opinion it's what makes America great. No other factor in our community defines us better. I have, and I bet you have, reached out to a perfect stranger who needed a hand. I once had a truck driver loan me 20 bucks so I could get home on time to make roll call. Middle of the night, the man didnt know me from Adam, or have any reason to believe he would ever get his money back. THAT is what for me defines America. I'm almost positive you've done the same at sometime or another. Because your parents and community instilled in you the idea that when a person in need is there, it's your job to help him. That's not Christian. That's American. Something we share, I'd bet. It's not even something we feel pride in for ourselves. Just sort of grateful that we were able to help out a little bit.

One thing I inadvertently left out of the social contract theory is that it is very much based on morals, values, ethics, & norms the collective establish. What is right & wrong is very much a perception based on one's background & beliefs (not necessarily religious) & by electing to join the community, you accept that these are the acceptable standards by which you are allowed to live in the community.

I was raised Catholic, complete with church, school, nuns w/rulers, etc. While I may not currently subscribe to life as espoused by the Roman Catholic church, I have no doubt where my morals & values come from - my upbringing - and Catholicism played a huge part in that (yes, along with my parents & community (which was mostly Christian, BTW)).

When you say above that, "That's not Christian. That's American.", I think you're marginalizing the role Christianity played in the formation of this country. The majority of our founding fathers were Christian (in some form or another) & those that weren't accepted the tenets of the value system Christianity brought to the formation of the government. Consequently, a very strong argument can be made that our great nation was founded on Christian principles with Christian morals, values, & ethics as their background.

Now before you think I'm being reactionary, let me quickly add that our founding fathers were also very smart & added in a separation of church and state to the fabric of our government. What the First Amendment does seems clear to me, but less so to the ACLU & others of their ilk. The First Amendment prohibits the establishment of a state church (like the Church of England) & prohibits the gov't from regulating other churches (as well as guaranteeing free exercise of religion).

That is my long-winded way of saying that this great country is founded on Christian principles, not Christianity - there is a difference. These Christian principles have been internalized into our government & subsequently, you view them as American - I cannot disagree with that view, but don't agree with the way you expressed it, as you seem to have divorced the two when they are virtually inseparable...unless the ACLU has their way.

There will always be religious zealots. Like zealots of any flavor, they create a lot of problems. But make no mistake, atheism is a religion insofar as it is a belief system & to foist that upon our government as the ACLU does, under the misconception that it is not a theistic belief system so it is somehow superior &, is supported by what the Constitution says, is just as wrong as establishing a Church of the USA because that's what would be happening. It borders on anarchy as well - the lack of a gov't-backed moral compass (not necessarily religion) welcomes chaos.

Religion is a funny thing, but serves some purpose, I think. It teaches morals, values, ethics and also that the individual is subservient to the god. Bear with me a moment. That there is a greater good to work for, be it heaven, valhalla, 72 virgins teaches people to control their own personal desires in the interest of a better future. The same can be said for good government - successful government requires a mutual work for the common good. This means, sometimes we have to do things because they're right & not because we want to.

I firmly believe that people like Madeline Murray O'Hare & that clown in California that wants to change the Pledge of Allegiance to remove references to god both there & on our money are the death knell of our society. Every time one of these zealots is successful in foisting their belief system on the collective, it's like pulling at the loose strings at the edge of a sweater; eventually, the sweater unravels because the underlying support of the thread is gone. This great nation will die a death of a thousand cuts.

I'm wavering now as I can't quite put into words what's in my head. I'm not religious by any means - I was dead serious in a previous post when I said I'm a non-practicing agnostic (the humor is just extra). But I also believe that people, left to their own devices, are generally selfish. Religion isn't a cure, but can be a guide.

There's been an email floating around over the last few years - I think I've received it four or five times now. Basically, it proposes that a democracy has a life cycle. While snopes has second-handedly refuted some of the statistics & attributions of text, the theory is sound. The lifecycle is thus:

-From bondage to spiritual faith
-From spiritual faith to great courage
-From courage to liberty
-From liberty to abundance
-From abundance to complacency
-From complacency to apathy
-From apathy to dependence
-From dependence back into bondage

And while I haven't read the entire work by Lord Woodhouselee, Universal History, I have scanned enough of it to know that in a meandering way, he does espouse the above while comparing many great democracies.

I believe we're somewhere between complacency & dependence. I see the apathy with the "It's just..." mentality many use to give away their freedoms & rights.

Lastly, make no mistake. The collective good has zealots who are every bit as dangerous as the individual rights zealots. These are the people who want to protect us from ourselves, these are the "if it saves one life it's worth it" brigade (who counter any rebuff with "if it was your son/daughter, you'd feel differently" emotional tirade) and we sacrifce freedom on the altar of safety.

It comes back to loose strings. Our republican democracy is not perfect, it's not new, & it cannot cover 100% of the situations. These are the loose strings around the semi-frayed edges of the fabric of our society. Unfortunately, someone's always pulling at those loose strings & eventually it will unravel.

[Bill Greenwood]

Capflyer as for as Roe vs Wade I am not an expert. I have to believe it's like our illustrious leader said when asked about poor people trying to escape the flood in New Orleans: Row or Wade, I don't care how they get out.
Whichever absolute view one wants to take; wouldn't it also be an improvement if both sides really cared about reducing the number of unwanted babies and better care for them once born.
As for as the election you seem to think "a partisan operative" is not a valid person to raise an issue. Who else do you think is going to? People are not there just because the love the sound of voting machines, both parties assign poll watchers. Do you think the Republican lawyers trying to get the court to stop the count are neutral?
It sounds like your idea of what the constitution says is not unbiased.

[Broken-Wrench]

How come the ACLU isn't against taking tax money from one class of people to give to another less responsible class or caring for someelses kids.. I don't see that anywhere in the consitiution.. I agree on the voting both stuff it needs fixed... I don't know if electronic voting is the answer as there are no paper trails to recount.

[T2 Ernie]

Capflyer, If you take an honest view, the courts interpret all the time, sometimes it seems one sided, other times it seems correct and necessary.

True to a point. It is interpreted in the context of current society which is constantly evolving.

Freedom of speech, is a fundamental, but they had no telephone much less internet in 1789. Do we limit it to only what is said in person, literal, or to all forms of communication?

Technology has only increased the number of people who can be offended by your free speech. Nothing more. Free speech is free speech.

I guess you are all for owning guns, but nowhere does it say private citizens can own guns. Few clauses are less specific and more open to opinion than that one.

Again, no context. Just so we're clear, here's what it says:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Context. This is typical of ACLU & others - by removing context & focusing on specific words, they attempt to confuse & dilute the opposition.

What was the context under which these words were put to paper? What was their intent? The militia does NOT refer to the National Guard as we know it today, rather, it refers to the people, private citizens who had their own weapons & fought for liberty. The idea that free men should be able to fight for their continued freedom was an inviolate construct in the framing of our government. There is no question, both in context and in words, that "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The preamble portion ("A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,...") provides the context only & does not, in any way, eliminate the right of the people (ie - private citizens) to keep & bear arms.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson

[bdk]

That is my long-winded way of saying that this great country is founded on Christian principles, not Christianity - there is a difference. These Christian principles have been internalized into our government & subsequently, you view them as American - I cannot disagree with that view, but don't agree with the way you expressed it, as you seem to have divorced the two when they are virtually inseparable...unless the ACLU has their way.

There will always be religious zealots. Like zealots of any flavor, they create a lot of problems. But make no mistake, atheism is a religion insofar as it is a belief system & to foist that upon our government as the ACLU does, under the misconception that it is not a theistic belief system so it is somehow superior &, is supported by what the Constitution says, is just as wrong as establishing a Church of the USA because that's what would be happening. It borders on anarchy as well - the lack of a gov't-backed moral compass (not necessarily religion) welcomes chaos.

Religion is a funny thing, but serves some purpose, I think. It teaches morals, values, ethics and also that the individual is subservient to the god. Bear with me a moment. That there is a greater good to work for, be it heaven, valhalla, 72 virgins teaches people to control their own personal desires in the interest of a better future. The same can be said for good government - successful government requires a mutual work for the common good. This means, sometimes we have to do things because they're right & not because we want to.

I think I voted for the wrong person for WIX MVP! You go Ernie!!!!!

[muddyboots]

How come the ACLU isn't against taking tax money from one class of people to give to another less responsible class or caring for someelses kids.. I don't see that anywhere in the consitiution.. I agree on the voting both stuff it needs fixed... I don't know if electronic voting is the answer as there are no paper trails to recount.

Say what? Aren't you gettig the ACLU and Robin Hood mixed up? Electronic voting is a bad bad idea. But what do I know? I'm no McGyver.

[CAPFlyer]

As for as the election you seem to think "a partisan operative" is not a valid person to raise an issue. Who else do you think is going to? People are not there just because the love the sound of voting machines, both parties assign poll watchers. Do you think the Republican lawyers trying to get the court to stop the count are neutral?
It sounds like your idea of what the constitution says is not unbiased.

You misrepresent the facts (unintentionally I'm sure) Bill. The partisan operative who raised the stink was masquerading as a non-partisan election judge. Once the facts of her history was revealed, she was fired as an election judge and barred from ever being one again in addition to being brought up on charges for fraud because she lied on her application as to her previous political activities. It is one thing to be a partisan operative assigned to be an election monitor. It's another to be one, lie about it, and pretent to be a non-partisan election judge.

Again, the taking of the issue to court was wrong on all counts. It is not the court's purview to deal with election matters. That is reserved solely to the Legislative branch. However, one must not forget that it was the Gore campaign attorneys that rushed to the courts on the issue after they failed to properly request a recount of the votes in the prescribed timeframe after the closing of the polls. They were allowed the recount anyway and when they lost, they then sued in court for a full state recount instead of just the districts that had been requested originally.

Sorry Bill, but my interpretation of the constitution is that of the constructionist view - it was written the way it was written to remove doubt, not create it. It is the "progressives" who view the document as "living" and mould it to fit their views of how they think it should be written and applied and not simply reading the words on those pieces of parchment.

[muddyboots]

CAP flyer, I'm not sure I can reply to any of your comments. They honestly lean so far out on the fringe that they soundsomewhat...conspiracy theorist. Before we get in a peeing contest, I am going to state here and now that if you don't want me laughing at you, please say so and I won't reply at all. As I said before, I am often accused of being a jerk when I am just trying to be funny. I expect people to make fun of me (long as they aren't calling me a homo or a liberal sissy or stupid. Insults aren't the same as ribbing, right?

[Bill Greenwood]

Cap, I did not misrepresent any facts about the "partisan" person, I did not present any facts as I did not know who you had in mind. Most everyone involved with an election is on one side or the other. I am sure if you find a Dem who filled out an application wrongly, there are some on the other side. The woman with all the makeup, I think she was Sec of State, couldn't wait to get to Washington.. She made the initial ruling to stop the vote count. Was she "partisan"?
As for the keep and bear arms part, you interpret it one way, other people another, but nowhere does it say private citizens can own assualt rifles. You dismiss the part about the militia. Maybe the founders, by militia, meant to keep arms in an armory like a national guard, I don't know, it is not totally clear, and I have not researched if there are other writings by the founders to shed light on their thinking. To you it it is totally clear because you want it that way.
As for freedom of speech, mine may offend, but unlike much of the right wing, and some on WIX, I am not trying to restrict your rights on this point.
Finally, if there are legitimate areas of doubt by honest, fair judges then another principle may be the good that comes from a decision. I recall the Brown v, School decision gave Negroes the right to attend white schools because it was found that the separate ones were not equal. Very few people, even on WIX, would now claim that Blacks should not have the same education rights as whites. When i was in school in Houston they used to replace our books every few years when they became worn. They sent our old ones to the schools in the minority areas.

Last edited by Bill Greenwood on Tue Dec 11, 2007 9:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[b29flteng]

Bill, Without the right to bear arms who is going to protect me? The police are not legally obligated to protect me. That was decided by the Supreme Court on June 27, 2005 by a 7-2 vote. In the case of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, the Supreme Court found that Jessica Gonzales did not have a constitutional right to police protection even in the presence of a restraining order. Where I live it takes about 15-30 minutes for law enforcement to respond.

[Bill Greenwood]

B-29: In these days of global warming and Skyraider carbon emissions depleting the ozone layer, you have more to worry about when you bare arms and risk skin cancer. And if you really want know about bear arms, move to Aspen and leave that Thanksgiving turkey on the counter near an open window.
Now to be serious, I did not say you don't have a right to arm yourself for protection. CAP was downing the ACLU. I tried to point put that there are areas of the Constitution that are subject to interpretation by the ACLU or many others, and I used the gun part as an example.

[CAPFlyer]

The woman with all the makeup, I think she was Sec of State, couldn't wait to get to Washington.. She made the initial ruling to stop the vote count. Was she "partisan"?

As I said, all parties in the matter were wrong. The decision was up to the Legislative branch on the matter as that is the branch who is empowered to make judgements over electoral issues, not the judicial or executive.

As for the keep and bear arms part, you interpret it one way, other people another, but nowhere does it say private citizens can own assualt rifles. You dismiss the part about the militia. Maybe the founders, by militia, meant to keep arms in an armory like a national guard, I don't know, it is not totally clear, and I have not researched if there are other writings by the founders to shed light on their thinking. To you it it is totally clear because you want it that way.

No, it's not because I want it to be that way. I do think that all rights have a caveat in them - that is that all rights must not infringe on anothers and that they must remain within reason. Well, the "within reason" is why we have a government. It's our job as a country to elect people to represent us in the Legislative and Executive to decide what is "within reason" and pass laws to state such. It is then the job of the duly appointed Judicial to determine if such laws are appropriate and do not abrogate the citizen's rights. If those criteria are met, then it is a legal limiting of the rights of a person. No rights are absolute. Also, for you to believe that the right to bear arms does not give the private citizen the right to arm themselves within reason, then you must ignore the second half of the second ammendment -

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed

(Emphasis added.)

The the first part of the ammendment deals with the Militia and the second half deals with the rights of the people to keep and bear arms. It concludes that NEITHER right shall be infringed.

As for freedom of speech, mine may offend, but unlike much of the right wing, and some on WIX, I am not trying to restrict your rights on this point.

Sorry Bill, but I have to call BS on this one. If you want to look at people abridging the right to free speech, look at the NAACP, ACLU, and much of the Left Wing Fringe who are the ones pushing the idea of Political Correctness. Political Correctness is just a "nice" way of telling you what you can and can't say - abridging your right to free speech.

Not only that, but there is NOTHING in the first ammendment that says that you (a citizen) cannot abridge the speech of another citizen. It only states that the government cannot do so -

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

(Emphasis added.)

BTW, WIX is not a PUBLIC forum nor is it a public place of meeting. As such, Scott, Ryan, and any other moderators have every right to determine what you can and cannot say on this forum. At the same time, the other members of this forum can petition those whom have been charged with moderating this forum and the administrators to limit or ammend the speech of another. There is case law to support it, and case law that states that this forum can be shut down if Scott fails to ensure proper control and moderation of this forum as well.

[bdk]

As for the keep and bear arms part, you interpret it one way, other people another, but nowhere does it say private citizens can own assualt rifles.

Why would it? That term of firearm demonization is a recent invention. In its day, the flintlock was an "assault rifle" as well as a hunting rifle. By my interpretation, the constitution considers ME as part of the militia. That allows ME to posess what you would define as "firearms not suitable for sporting purposes." The constitution says nothing in it about hunting, shooting clay frisbees or putting holes in paper at an olympic event. By my interpretation I get to own a machine gun to defend my person, my family, my property and my country.

I'll even bet your son agrees with me!