| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Papa Jack" |
| Date: |
29 Nov 2003 12:45:36 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Undermining Society's Morals |
purple2510@hotmail.com (Purple) wrote in message
news:<9e034035.0311281727.23be1ad5@posting.google.com>...
papajack@stic.net (Papa Jack) wrote in message
news:<6f9e1b49.0311280923.1d636c47@posting.google.com>...
==========================================================
Papa Jack cited:
On November 28, 2003. the Washington Post included
an article by Alan Charles Raul titled: "Undermining
Society's Morals." Go to:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17611-2003Nov27.html
___________________________________________________________________
"The promotion of gay marriage is not the most devastating
aspect of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's
recent decision. The more destructive impact of the deci-
sion for society is the court's insidious denial of morality
itself as a rational basis for legislation. This observation
is not hyperbole or a mere rhetorical characterization of
the Goodridge v. Department of Public Health decision.
The Massachusetts justices actually quoted two opinions
of the U.S. Supreme Court (the recent anti-anti-sodomy
ruling in Lawrence v. Texas and an older anti-antiabor-
tion ruling, Planned Parenthood v. Casey) to support
the proposition that the legislature may not "mandate [a]
moral code" for society at large. The courts, it would
seem, have read a fundamental political choice into the
Constitution that is not apparent from the face of the
document itself -- that is, that individual desires must
necessarily trump community interests whenever impor-
tant issues are at stake....
==========================================================
Purple wrote:
Note that the author never troubles to explain how community
interests are served by denying women the right to abortion
or allowing gay's the right to be legally married. This is
the problem with much conservative thinking - they don't
seem to need to prove that something causes anyone any
harm in order to condemn it as 'immoral'
==========================================================
Papa Jack replied:
That's not the point, Purple. The point is that the courts
are exceeding their authority in ways not covered by
the Constitution.
Griswold v Connecticut was a key decision in the
power grab by the Supreme Court. Go to:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=volpage&court=us&vol=381&page=484#484
Justice Black wrote a foreboding dissent:
"...I repeat so as not to be misunderstood that this
Court does have power, which it should exercise, to
hold laws unconstitutional where they are forbidden
by the Federal Constitution. My point is that THERE
IS NO PROVISION [381 U.S. 479, 521] OF THE CONSTITU-
TION WHICH EITHER EXPRESSLYO OR IMPLIEDLY VESTS POWER
IN THIS COURT TO SIT AS A SUPERVIOSRY AGANCY OVER
ACTS OF DULY CONSTITUTED LEGISLATIVE BODIES AND SET
ASIDE THEIR LAWS BECAUSE OF THE COURT'S BELIEF THAT
THE LEGISLATIVE POLICIES ADOPTED ARE UNREASONABLE,
UNWISE, ARBITRARY, CAPRICIOUS, OR IRRATIONAL. The
adoption of such a loose, flexible, uncontrolled
standard for holding laws unconstitutional, if ever
it is finally achieved, will amount to a great
unconstitutional shift of power to the courts which
I believe and am constrained to say will be bad for
the courts and worse for the country. Subjecting
federal and state laws to such an unrestrained and
unrestrainable judicial control as to the wisdom of
legislative enactments would, I fear, jeopardize the
separation of governmental powers that the Framers
set up and at the same time threaten to take away
much of the power of States to govern themselves
which the Constitution plainly intended them to
have." 16 [381 U.S. 479, 522]
IOW, it's not the job of the courts to decide such matters.
It's the job of the legislatures.
==========================================================
Papa Jack quoted:
"These judicial pronouncements, therefore, constitute an
appalling abnegation of popular sovereignty.In a republi-
can form of government, which the Constitution guaran-
tees for the United States, elected officials are meant to
set social policy for the country. They do so by embod-
ying their view of America's moral choices in law. (This
is a particularly crucial manner for propagating morality
in our republic because the Constitution rightly forbids
the establishment of religion, the other major social
vehicle for advancing morality across society.) In reality,
legislatures discharge their moral mandates all the time,
and not just in controversial areas such as abortion, gay
rights, pornography and the like.
"Animal rights, protection of endangered species, many
zoning laws and a great deal of environmental protection
-- especially wilderness conservation -- are based on
moral imperatives (as well as related aesthetic prefer-
ences). Though utilitarian arguments can be offered to
salvage these kinds of laws, those arguments in truth
amount to mere rationalizations. The fact is that a major-
ity of society wants its elected representatives to pre-
serve, protect and promote these values independent
of traditional cost-benefit, "what have you done for me
lately" kind of analysis. ...
==========================================================
Purple wrote:
Aside from self interest and arbitrary moral codes what
alternatives are there to cost-benefit analysis?
==========================================================
Papa Jack replied:
The proper alternative is to allow the legislatures
to establish the moral codes of the community (within
the limitations specifically established by the
Constitution).
For example, a simple cost-benefit analysis might find
that it wasn't economical to continue to have a Child
Protection Agency. After all, who is to decide what
is and what is not "child abuse?" If a particular
father believes beating his 3-year old daughter with a
baseball bat is the proper way to discipline her when
she misbehaves, who is to say he's wrong? Think about it.
==========================================================
Papa Jack quoted:
"... Indeed, some of these choices
can and do infringe individual liberty considerably: for
example, protecting spotted owl habitat over jobs
puts a lot of loggers out of work and their families in
extremis. Likewise, zoning restrictions can deprive
individuals of their ability to use their property and
live their lives as they might otherwise prefer. Fre-
quently, the socially constrained individuals will sue
the state claiming that such legal restrictions "take"
property or deprive them of "liberty" in violation of
the Fifth Amendment, or constitute arbitrary and
capricious governmental action. And while such plain-
tiffs sometimes do and should prevail in advancing
their individual interests over those of the broader
community, no one contends that the government does
not have the legitimate power to promote the general
welfare as popularly defined (subject, of course, to
the specific constitutional rights of individuals and
due regard for the protection of discrete and insular
minorities bereft of meaningful political influence).
"Even the much maligned tax code is a congeries of
collective, moral preferences. Favoring home owner-
ship over renting has,to be sure, certain utilitarian
justifications. But the fact is that we collectively
believe that the country benefits from the moral
strength growing out of families owning and investing
in their own homes. Likewise, the tax deduction for
charitable contributions is fundamentally grounded in
the social desire to support good deeds. Our society,
moreover, puts its money (and lives) where its heart is:
We have gone to war on more than one occasion because
it was the morally correct thing to do. So courts that
deny morality as a rational basis for legislation are
not only undermining the moral fabric of society, they
run directly counter to actual legislative practice in
innumerable important areas of society. We must recog-
nize that what the Massachusetts court has done is not
preserve liberty but merely substitute its own moral
code for that of the people....
==========================================================
Purple wrote:
Eh? What is the denial of the right to legal marriage for
gay couples if not an infringement of their liberty?
==========================================================
Papa Jack replied:
What is the denial of the right of bank robbers
to rob banks if not an infringement of their
liberty?
See, you are making a false assumption. The
Constitution does NOT give us the right to do
however we may want to do, regardless of
consequences.
Again, let's return to Griswold v Connecticut. Go to:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=381&invol=479
Justice Douglas wrote the fateful word that led to the
unjustified power grab by the Supreme Court:
" The foregoing cases suggest that
"...specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights
have penumbras, formed by emanations from
those guarantees that help give them life
and substance. ..."
Now those fancy words sound really impressive until
one stops to realize Douglas was claiming the court
was now free to find NEW rights whenever it so pleased
them. They were no longer bound by the actual WORDS
of the Constitution.
==========================================================
Papa Jack quoted:
"...This damage is not merely
inflicted on government, trampling as it does the so-
called "separation of powers." It does much worse, for
when judges erode the power of the people's representa-
tives to set society's moral compass, they likewise
undercut the authority of parents, schools and other
community groups to set the standards they would
like to see their children and fellow citizens live by.
Indeed, it is a frontal assault on community values
writ large. ...
==========================================================
Purple wrote:
Why do you consider pointless conformism better than
allowing individual's to seek happiness in their own
way?
==========================================================
Papa Jack replied:
Who said anything at all about "pointless conformism?"
I think all Americans, liberals and conservatives,
love liberty and choice. However, as shown by Willam
Golding, in his classic _Lord of the Flies_, "men are
inherently evil; if left alone to fend for themselves,
they will revert back to the savage roots of their
ancestors."
http://www.novelguide.com/lordoftheflies/themeanalysis.html
The very concepts of rights found in our Constitution
were heavily influenced by Thomas Paine's, _Rights of
Man_; go to:
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_paine/rights_of_man/part1.html
"A constitution is not a thing in name only, but in fact. It has
not an ideal, but a real existence; and wherever it cannot be
produced in a visible form, there is none. A constitution is a
thing antecedent to a government, and a government is only
the creature of a constitution. The constitution of a country
is not the act of its government, but of the people constituting
its government. It is the body of elements, to which you can
refer, and quote article by article; and which contains the
principles on which the government shall be established, the
manner in which it shall be organised, the powers it shall have,
the mode of elections, the duration of Parliaments, or by what
other name such bodies may be called; the powers which the
executive part of the government shall have; and in fine, every-
thing that relates to the complete organisation of a civil govern-
ment, and the principles on which it shall act, and by which it
shall be bound. A constitution, therefore, is to a government
what the laws made afterwards by that government are to a
court of judicature. THE COURT OF JUDICATURE DOES NOT MAKE THE
LAWS, NEITHER CAN IT ALTER THEM; it only acts in conformity to
the laws made: and the government is in like manner governed by
the constitution.
==========================================================
Papa Jack quoted:
"...It is thus no wonder that many feel our
culture's values are going to hell in a handbasket.
Yet, neither the federal nor Massachusetts constitu-
ions truly compel such a pernicious outcome. Indeed,
to this day the Massachusetts Constitution precisely
recognizes that "instructions in piety, religion and
morality promote the happiness and prosperity of a
people and the security of a republican government."
==========================================================
Purple wrote:
Many do. This doesn't mean we should adopt those
instructions which do more harm than good.
==========================================================
Papa Jack replied:
Ahhhh, but WHO is to decide what is harmful and what
is good? That's the writer's (Alan Raul ) primary
point. It should NOT be up to the courts to decide
the moral values of our nation -- that's the province
of the legislatures.
==========================================================
Papa Jack quoted:
"...It cannot be stated better than George Washington
did in his first inaugural address: "The foundation of
our national policy will be laid in the pure and immu-
table principles of private morality, and the preemi-
nence of free government be exemplified by all the
attributes which can win the affections of its citizens
and command the respect of the world."
___________________________________________________________________
Papa Jack comments:
"We must recognize that what the Massachusetts
court has done is not preserve liberty but
merely substitute its own moral code for that
of the people...."
This is a good summary of what we constantly observe
the radical liberals trying to misuse the courts to
accomplish in all facets of our society. They would
strip the nation of its traditional morals, substitu-
ting the morals of the collective.
==========================================================
Purple wrote:
That something is traditional does not necessarily mean
it is correct. It is only sensible to analyse our
traditional morality and refine it as necessary in order
to take account of societal changes and useless
conformism. I don't wish to strip away my nation's
traditional morals for the sake of it.
I just believe that laws should be made in order
to protect individual's from harm or to allow society
to function rather than because "the bible says
something is wrong" or "our ancestors wouldn't have
approved."
==========================================================
Papa Jack replied:
You miss the point of the article. The point is WHO
should decide these issues? The Constitution gives
this authority to the legislatures -- but, activist
courts more and more have imposed their own personal
moral codes on the rest of us. That's not only wrong,
it harmful to the welfare of the nation.
Happy holidays.
.
|
|
| User: "H,R.Gruemm" |
|
| Title: Re: Undermining Society's Morals |
30 Nov 2003 06:25:21 AM |
|
|
(Papa Jack) wrote in message news:<6f9e1b49.0311291045.5e0d1b13@posting.google.com>...
<snip>
==========================================================
Papa Jack replied:
That's not the point, Purple. The point is that the courts
are exceeding their authority in ways not covered by
the Constitution.
You mean that the US Constitution does not give authority to interpret
it to the Supreme Court ?
Griswold v Connecticut was a key decision in the
power grab by the Supreme Court. Go to:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=volpage&court=us&vol=381&page=484#484
Justice Black wrote a foreboding dissent:
"...I repeat so as not to be misunderstood that this
Court does have power, which it should exercise, to
hold laws unconstitutional where they are forbidden
by the Federal Constitution. My point is that THERE
IS NO PROVISION [381 U.S. 479, 521] OF THE CONSTITU-
TION WHICH EITHER EXPRESSLYO OR IMPLIEDLY VESTS POWER
IN THIS COURT TO SIT AS A SUPERVIOSRY AGANCY OVER
ACTS OF DULY CONSTITUTED LEGISLATIVE BODIES AND SET
ASIDE THEIR LAWS BECAUSE OF THE COURT'S BELIEF THAT
THE LEGISLATIVE POLICIES ADOPTED ARE UNREASONABLE,
UNWISE, ARBITRARY, CAPRICIOUS, OR IRRATIONAL. The
adoption of such a loose, flexible, uncontrolled
standard for holding laws unconstitutional, if ever
it is finally achieved, will amount to a great
unconstitutional shift of power to the courts which
I believe and am constrained to say will be bad for
the courts and worse for the country. Subjecting
federal and state laws to such an unrestrained and
unrestrainable judicial control as to the wisdom of
legislative enactments would, I fear, jeopardize the
separation of governmental powers that the Framers
set up and at the same time threaten to take away
much of the power of States to govern themselves
which the Constitution plainly intended them to
have." 16 [381 U.S. 479, 522]
IOW, it's not the job of the courts to decide such matters.
It's the job of the legislatures.
I'm sure you realize that Black's opinion has never come close to
command a majority on the SC.
==========================================================
Purple wrote:
Eh? What is the denial of the right to legal marriage for
gay couples if not an infringement of their liberty?
==========================================================
Papa Jack replied:
What is the denial of the right of bank robbers
to rob banks if not an infringement of their
liberty?
Because 1) robbing banks infringes the rights of others; 2) it is
forbidden to anyone.
OTOH, 1) a "gay marriage" doesn't infringe anyone else's rights, and
2) heterosexuals *may* marry a consenting adult partner of their
choice. Denying the same rights to homosexuals is a denial of equal
protection (a term you will find in the Constitution).
See, you are making a false assumption. The
Constitution does NOT give us the right to do
however we may want to do, regardless of
consequences.
No, but an action must actually infringe someone else's rights in
order to be forbidden; otherwise it's a violation of liberty.
Again, let's return to Griswold v Connecticut. Go to:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=381&invol=479
Justice Douglas wrote the fateful word that led to the
unjustified power grab by the Supreme Court:
" The foregoing cases suggest that
"...specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights
have penumbras, formed by emanations from
those guarantees that help give them life
and substance. ..."
Now those fancy words sound really impressive until
one stops to realize Douglas was claiming the court
was now free to find NEW rights whenever it so pleased
them. They were no longer bound by the actual WORDS
of the Constitution.
Since the US Constitution itself says (see the 9th) that it does not
contain a complete enumeration of all fundamental rights, what's your
problem ? BTW, the words which are interpreted in Griswold are "due
process" and "liberty" - and they *are* found in the constitution.
==========================================================
Papa Jack quoted:
"...This damage is not merely
inflicted on government, trampling as it does the so-
called "separation of powers." It does much worse, for
when judges erode the power of the people's representa-
tives to set society's moral compass, they likewise
undercut the authority of parents, schools and other
community groups to set the standards they would
like to see their children and fellow citizens live by.
Indeed, it is a frontal assault on community values
writ large. ...
==========================================================
Purple wrote:
Why do you consider pointless conformism better than
allowing individual's to seek happiness in their own
way?
==========================================================
Papa Jack replied:
Who said anything at all about "pointless conformism?"
I think all Americans, liberals and conservatives,
love liberty and choice. However, as shown by Willam
Golding, in his classic _Lord of the Flies_, "men are
inherently evil; if left alone to fend for themselves,
they will revert back to the savage roots of their
ancestors."
"Shown" is a bit of an exaggeration.
http://www.novelguide.com/lordoftheflies/themeanalysis.html
The very concepts of rights found in our Constitution
were heavily influenced by Thomas Paine's, _Rights of
Man_; go to:
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_paine/rights_of_man/part1.html
"A constitution is not a thing in name only, but in fact. It has
not an ideal, but a real existence; and wherever it cannot be
produced in a visible form, there is none. A constitution is a
thing antecedent to a government, and a government is only
the creature of a constitution. The constitution of a country
is not the act of its government, but of the people constituting
its government. It is the body of elements, to which you can
refer, and quote article by article; and which contains the
principles on which the government shall be established, the
manner in which it shall be organised, the powers it shall have,
the mode of elections, the duration of Parliaments, or by what
other name such bodies may be called; the powers which the
executive part of the government shall have; and in fine, every-
thing that relates to the complete organisation of a civil govern-
ment, and the principles on which it shall act, and by which it
shall be bound. A constitution, therefore, is to a government
what the laws made afterwards by that government are to a
court of judicature. THE COURT OF JUDICATURE DOES NOT MAKE THE
LAWS, NEITHER CAN IT ALTER THEM; it only acts in conformity to
the laws made: and the government is in like manner governed by
the constitution.
No. But the courts can interpret the constitution in a way which
differs from your opinion, PJ. The line between interpreting and
making law is impossible to draw when we are dealing with such
indeterminate concepts like "liberty" etc.
==========================================================
Papa Jack quoted:
"...It is thus no wonder that many feel our
culture's values are going to hell in a handbasket.
Yet, neither the federal nor Massachusetts constitu-
ions truly compel such a pernicious outcome. Indeed,
to this day the Massachusetts Constitution precisely
recognizes that "instructions in piety, religion and
morality promote the happiness and prosperity of a
people and the security of a republican government."
==========================================================
Purple wrote:
Many do. This doesn't mean we should adopt those
instructions which do more harm than good.
==========================================================
Papa Jack replied:
Ahhhh, but WHO is to decide what is harmful and what
is good? That's the writer's (Alan Raul ) primary
point. It should NOT be up to the courts to decide
the moral values of our nation -- that's the province
of the legislatures.
No. It's the province of the constitution. There is a good reason why
the definition of moral values has been withdrawn from bare majorities
and requires the super-majority of a constitutional amendment.
<snip>
Papa Jack replied:
You miss the point of the article. The point is WHO
should decide these issues? The Constitution gives
this authority to the legislatures
No, it doesn't. It reserves that authority to itself. No legislature
may decide that its moral values by themselves justify different
treatments of blacks and whites, women and men, homosexuals and
heterosexuals etc.
-- but, activist
courts more and more have imposed their own personal
moral codes on the rest of us. That's not only wrong,
it harmful to the welfare of the nation.
Not at all. The courts have simply restrained a bare majority from
imposing *its* personal moral codes on the rest of us.
P.S. I've read of polls which say that a majority of Massachusetts
residents agree with the decision.
Have a nice day!
HRG.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Papa Jack" |
|
| Title: Re: Undermining Society's Morals |
01 Dec 2003 06:09:31 PM |
|
|
psychotech@xpoint.at (H,R.Gruemm) wrote in message
news:<5662bb3.0311300425.5e9f4419@posting.google.com>...
papajack@stic.net (Papa Jack) wrote in message
news:<6f9e1b49.0311291045.5e0d1b13@posting.google.com>...
<snip>
====================================================================
Papa Jack replied:
That's not the point, Purple. The point is that the courts
are exceeding their authority in ways not covered by
the Constitution.
====================================================================
Hans-Richard Gruemm wrote:
You mean that the US Constitution does not give
authority to interpret it to the Supreme Court ?
====================================================================
Papa Jack replied:
Go to:
http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/constitution_transcript.html
Article III. Section. 3.
"In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme
Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law
and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such
Regulations as the Congress shall make."
"...appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact,..."
The word "interpret" is all too often given the meaning of
deciding what the members believe the best answer is,
regardless of what the Constitution may or may not say.
====================================================================
Papa Jack wrote:
Griswold v Connecticut was a key decision in the
power grab by the Supreme Court. Go to:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=volpage&court=us&vol=381&page=484#484
Justice Black wrote a foreboding dissent:
"...I repeat so as not to be misunderstood that this
Court does have power, which it should exercise, to
hold laws unconstitutional where they are forbidden
by the Federal Constitution. My point is that THERE
IS NO PROVISION [381 U.S. 479, 521] OF THE
CONSTITUTION WHICH EITHER EXPRESSLY
OR IMPLIEDLY VESTS POWER IN THIS COURT
TO SIT AS A SUPERVIOSRY AGANCY OVER
ACTS OF DULY CONSTITUTED LEGISLATIVE
BODIES AND SET ASIDE THEIR LAWS BECAUSE
OF THE COURT'S BELIEF THAT THE LEGISLA-
TIVE POLICIES ADOPTED ARE UNREASONABLE,
UNWISE, ARBITRARY, CAPRICIOUS, OR IRRA-
TIONAL. The adoption of such a loose, flexible,
uncontrolled standard for holding laws unconstitutional,
if ever it is finally achieved, will amount to a great
unconstitutional shift of power to the courts which
I believe and am constrained to say will be bad for
the courts and worse for the country. Subjecting
federal and state laws to such an unrestrained and
unrestrainable judicial control as to the wisdom of
legislative enactments would, I fear, jeopardize the
separation of governmental powers that the Framers
set up and at the same time threaten to take away
much of the power of States to govern themselves
which the Constitution plainly intended them to
have." 16 [381 U.S. 479, 522]
IOW, it's not the job of the courts to decide such matters.
It's the job of the legislatures.
====================================================================
Hans-Richard Gruemm wrote:
I'm sure you realize that Black's opinion has never
come close to command a majority on the SC.
====================================================================
Papa Jack replied:
You're correct. Now stop and wonder why not.
Might it be because this decision gave the justices
much greater power and authority than ever
intended by the founding fathers?
People who get to this level in government have
great drive, ambition, and ego. Even men/women
of great integrity are sorely tempted by such power.
Just review how much more "creative" the Supreme
Court has been in its decisions since Griswold v
Connecticut. They no longer feel bound by the
words of the Constitution unless convenient.
====================================================================
Purple wrote:
Eh? What is the denial of the right to legal marriage for
gay couples if not an infringement of their liberty?
====================================================================
Papa Jack replied:
What is the denial of the right of bank robbers
to rob banks if not an infringement of their
liberty?
====================================================================
Hans-Richard Gruemm wrote:
Because 1) robbing banks infringes the rights of
others; 2) it is forbidden to anyone.
====================================================================
Papa Jack replied:
There are more considerations than whether or
not an act infringes on the rights of others.
What about polygamy? Why should we outlaw a man
taking 3 wives if all agree?
What about nudity? Does it really hurt anyone else if
I choose to walk around naked in public?
I'm sure you can think of many other examples of
laws written to enforce society's moral codes.
====================================================================
Hans-Richard Gruemm wrote:
OTOH, 1) a "gay marriage" doesn't infringe anyone
else's rights, and 2) heterosexuals *may* marry a
consenting adult partner of their choice. Denying the
same rights to homosexuals is a denial of equal
protection (a term you will find in the Constitution).
====================================================================
Papa Jack replied:
It is "equal protection" ONLY if you ignore the
fundamental differences between males and
females which have been such a major influence
on the history of mankind.
Look at the world today.
* What major culture considers the marriage of a
man to a woman to be EXACTLY THE SAME
as the marriage of a man to a man?
* How many cultures consider such relationships
to be a perversion of the natural order?
Is it a denial of personal liberty to prohibit the legal
recognition and approval of what a society considers
a perversion?
====================================================================
Papa Jack wrote:
See, you are making a false assumption. The
Constitution does NOT give us the right to do
however we may want to do, regardless of
consequences.
====================================================================
Hans-Richard Gruemm wrote:
No, but an action must actually infringe someone
else's rights in order to be forbidden; otherwise it's
a violation of liberty.
====================================================================
Papa Jack replied:
Thomas Paine, _Rights of Man_; Part One: excerpt
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_paine/rights_of_man/part1.html
[...]
"A constitution is not a thing in name only, but in fact. It has
not an ideal, but a real existence; and wherever it cannot be
produced in a visible form, there is none. A constitution is a
thing antecedent to a government, and a government is only
the creature of a constitution. The constitution of a country
is not the act of its government, but of the people constituting
its government. It is the body of elements, to which you can
refer, and quote article by article; and which contains the
principles on which the government shall be established, the
manner in which it shall be organised, the powers it shall have,
the mode of elections, the duration of Parliaments, or by what
other name such bodies may be called; the powers which the
executive part of the government shall have; and in fine, every-
thing that relates to the complete organisation of a civil govern-
ment, and the principles on which it shall act, and by which it
shall be bound. A constitution, therefore, is to a government
what the laws made afterwards by that government are to a
court of judicature. THE COURT OF JUDICATURE DOES
NOT MAKE THE LAWS, NEITHER CAN IT ALTER
THEM; IT ONLY ACTS IN CONFORMITY TO THE
LAWS MANE: and the government is in like manner
governed by the constitution.
====================================================================
Papa Jack wrote:
Again, let's return to Griswold v Connecticut. Go to:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=381&invol=479
Justice Douglas wrote the fateful word that led to the
unjustified power grab by the Supreme Court:
" The foregoing cases suggest that
"...specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights
have penumbras, formed by emanations from
those guarantees that help give them life
and substance. ..."
Now those fancy words sound really impressive until
one stops to realize Douglas was claiming the court
was now free to find NEW rights whenever it so pleased
them. They were no longer bound by the actual WORDS
of the Constitution.
====================================================================
Hans-Richard Gruemm wrote:
Since the US Constitution itself says (see the 9th) that it does not
contain a complete enumeration of all fundamental rights, what's your
problem ?
====================================================================
Papa Jack replied:
Let's review:
http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
"Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution,
of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or
disparage others retained by the people."
"Amendment X: 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.
Now where does it say anything about rights to
be determined by the Supreme Court as it may
please them on any given day?
It looks to me as though the Founding Fathers
inten
ed the state legislatures to deal with these
matters. A reading of the history books confirms
that impression.
====================================================================
Hans-Richard Gruemm wrote:
...BTW, the words which are interpreted in Griswold
are "due process" and "liberty" - and they *are* found
in the constitution.
====================================================================
Papa Jack replied:
That's not the point, Hans. The words which led to
the illegal power grab were written by Justice Douglas:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=381&invol=479
The foregoing cases suggest that
"...specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights
have penumbras, formed by emanations from
those guarantees that help give them life
and substance. ..."
This use of the words "penumbras" and emanations"
simply mean that the Court would henceforth not be
bound by the actual words of the Constitution and
would feel free to find new rights wherever their
personal moral codes felt good.
==========================================================
Papa Jack quoted:
"...This damage is not merely
inflicted on government, trampling as it does the so-
called "separation of powers." It does much worse, for
when judges erode the power of the people's representa-
tives to set society's moral compass, they likewise
undercut the authority of parents, schools and other
community groups to set the standards they would
like to see their children and fellow citizens live by.
Indeed, it is a frontal assault on community values
writ large. ...
==========================================================
Purple wrote:
Why do you consider pointless conformism better than
allowing individual's to seek happiness in their own
way?
==========================================================
Papa Jack replied:
Who said anything at all about "pointless conformism?"
I think all Americans, liberals and conservatives,
love liberty and choice. However, as shown by Willam
Golding, in his classic _Lord of the Flies_, "men are
inherently evil; if left alone to fend for themselves,
they will revert back to the savage roots of their
ancestors."
http://www.novelguide.com/lordoftheflies/themeanalysis.html
====================================================================
Hans-Richard Gruemm wrote:
"Shown" is a bit of an exaggeration.
====================================================================
Papa Jack replied:
Perhaps, but it is a great and very believable classic.
Having raised 3 sons and now a 19-year old grand-
son , I think Golding presents a realistic picture of
what can happen to people if the "normal" restraints
are removed.
====================================================================
Papa Jack wrote:
The very concepts of rights found in our Constitution
were heavily influenced by Thomas Paine's, _Rights of
Man_; go to:
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_paine/rights_of_man/part1.html
"A constitution is not a thing in name only, but in fact. It has
not an ideal, but a real existence; and wherever it cannot be
produced in a visible form, there is none. A constitution is a
thing antecedent to a government, and a government is only
the creature of a constitution. The constitution of a country
is not the act of its government, but of the people constituting
its government. It is the body of elements, to which you can
refer, and quote article by article; and which contains the
principles on which the government shall be established, the
manner in which it shall be organised, the powers it shall have,
the mode of elections, the duration of Parliaments, or by what
other name such bodies may be called; the powers which the
executive part of the government shall have; and in fine, every-
thing that relates to the complete organisation of a civil
govern-
ment, and the principles on which it shall act, and by which it
shall be bound. A constitution, therefore, is to a government
what the laws made afterwards by that government are to a
court of judicature. THE COURT OF JUDICATURE DOES
NOT MAKE THE LAWS, NEITHER CAN IT ALTER
THEM; it only acts in conformity to the laws made: and the
government is in like manner governed by the constitution.
====================================================================
Hans-Richard Gruemm wrote:
No. But the courts can interpret the constitution in
a way which differs from your opinion, PJ....
====================================================================
Papa Jack replied:
Of course, I accept that.
====================================================================
Hans-Richard Gruemm wrote:
...The line between interpreting and making law
is impossible to draw when we are dealing with
such indeterminate concepts like "liberty" etc.
====================================================================
Papa Jack replied:
I disagree. The point of the original article I
quoted was that it is the intent of the Consti-
tution that such matters (public moral codes)
be decided by the respective legislatures.
These elected representatives are answerable
to the people -- but, judges are answerable
only to themselves.
Then, the courts are responsible to determine
whether on not such laws violate the words
of the Bill of Rights (or other Constitutional
defined rights). Finding new rights is not
within their authority.
==========================================================
Papa Jack quoted:
"...It is thus no wonder that many feel our
culture's values are going to hell in a handbasket.
Yet, neither the federal nor Massachusetts constitu-
ions truly compel such a pernicious outcome. Indeed,
to this day the Massachusetts Constitution precisely
recognizes that "instructions in piety, religion and
morality promote the happiness and prosperity of a
people and the security of a republican government."
==========================================================
Purple wrote:
Many do. This doesn't mean we should adopt those
instructions which do more harm than good.
==========================================================
Papa Jack replied:
Ahhhh, but WHO is to decide what is harmful and what
is good? That's the writer's (Alan Raul ) primary
point. It should NOT be up to the courts to decide
the moral values of our nation -- that's the province
of the legislatures.
====================================================================
Hans-Richard Gruemm wrote:
No. It's the province of the constitution....
====================================================================
Papa Jack replied:
Okay, but it's still up to the legislatures, rather,
than the courts, to include these constitutional
values in the laws of the land.
====================================================================
Hans-Richard Gruemm wrote:
...There is a good reason why the definition of
moral values has been withdrawn from bare
majorities and requires the super-majority
of a constitutional amendment.
====================================================================
Papa Jack replied:
Yep, but what happens when a 5 to 4 decision
comes down from the Supreme Court -- it's
suddenly "the law of the land." There is no
"super-majority" here, just five old folk in
black robes.
<snip>
====================================================================
Papa Jack replied:
You miss the point of the article. The point is WHO
should decide these issues? The Constitution gives
this authority to the legislatures
====================================================================
Hans-Richard Gruemm wrote:
No, it doesn't. It reserves that authority to itself. No
legislature may decide that its moral values by them-
selves justify different treatments of blacks and whites,
women and men, homosexuals and heterosexuals etc.
====================================================================
Papa Jack replied:
The legislatures are ALWAYS limited by the WORDS
of the Constitution. That's why we have a Constitution.
====================================================================
Papa Jack wrote:
-- but, activist
courts more and more have imposed their own personal
moral codes on the rest of us. That's not only wrong,
it harmful to the welfare of the nation.
====================================================================
Hans-Richard Gruemm wrote:
Not at all. The courts have simply restrained a bare
majority from imposing *its* personal moral codes
on the rest of us.
====================================================================
Papa Jack replied:
Again, Hans -- how's that? Aren't 9 people in black
robes a tiny minority? Yet, you would give them the
power to impose their personal moral codes on the
rest of us. Meanwhile, you don't trust the elected
representatives to carry out the people's business.
====================================================================
Hans-Richard Gruemm wrote:
P.S. I've read of polls which say that a majority
of Massachusetts residents agree with the decision.
====================================================================
Papa Jack replied:
I didn't find that, but I found a confusing article about
polling the members of the Massachusetts legislature.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2003/12/01/in_lawmaker_poll_few_back_limiting_marriage/
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lawrence E. McKnight" |
|
| Title: Re: Undermining Society's Morals |
30 Nov 2003 12:49:02 PM |
|
|
On 30 Nov 2003 04:25:21 -0800, (H,R.Gruemm)
wrote:
papajack@stic.net (Papa Jack) wrote in message news:<6f9e1b49.0311291045.5e0d1b13@posting.google.com>...
<snip>
==========================================================
Papa Jack replied:
That's not the point, Purple. The point is that the courts
are exceeding their authority in ways not covered by
the Constitution.
You mean that the US Constitution does not give authority to interpret
it to the Supreme Court ?
Actually, it doesn't do so explicitly. But Marbury v. Madison is
considered settled law. PJ probably disagrees. Of course, he also
apparently has problems with Mapp v. Ohio. (but I wonder if he would
change his mind if there were an anti-abortion amendment.....)
[snip...
-
Larry
(this space unintentionally left blank .....
make obvious deletion for email
.
|
|
|
| User: "H,R.Gruemm" |
|
| Title: Re: Undermining Society's Morals |
01 Dec 2003 12:42:32 AM |
|
|
Lawrence E. McKnight <lawrence.delete.mcknight@sbcglobal.delete.net> wrote in message news:<sjeksvgbs57mqdjcd0phvkcgdabor45cf9@4ax.com>...
On 30 Nov 2003 04:25:21 -0800, (H,R.Gruemm)
wrote:
papajack@stic.net (Papa Jack) wrote in message news:<6f9e1b49.0311291045.5e0d1b13@posting.google.com>...
<snip>
==========================================================
Papa Jack replied:
That's not the point, Purple. The point is that the courts
are exceeding their authority in ways not covered by
the Constitution.
You mean that the US Constitution does not give authority to interpret
it to the Supreme Court ?
Actually, it doesn't do so explicitly.
Art. III gives the federal courts jurisdiction over all cases arising
under this Constitution etc. Jurisdiction includes the power to say
what the law is, i.e. to interpret the text.
But Marbury v. Madison is
considered settled law. PJ probably disagrees. Of course, he also
apparently has problems with Mapp v. Ohio. (but I wonder if he would
change his mind if there were an anti-abortion amendment.....)
True.
Regards,
HRG.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pavil Natanovich" |
|
| Title: Re: Undermining Society's Morals |
30 Nov 2003 11:41:08 AM |
|
|
(Papa Jack) wrote in message news:<6f9e1b49.0311291045.5e0d1b13@posting.google.com>...
==========================================================
Purple wrote:
Eh? What is the denial of the right to legal marriage for
gay couples if not an infringement of their liberty?
==========================================================
Papa Jack replied:
What is the denial of the right of bank robbers
to rob banks if not an infringement of their
liberty?
See, you are making a false assumption. The
Constitution does NOT give us the right to do
however we may want to do, regardless of
consequences.
That is true. However, you wish to invent artificial consequences.
What are the consequences of allowing gays to excercise their
individual liberty with respect to marriage? There are none, outside
the elaborate laws and social castigations you wish to erect.
When robbers are allowed to rob, to use your poor example, property
rights cease to exist. What is to stop the robbed from rerobbing the
robbers? Obviously laws against robbery and theft of any kind serve a
useful and necessary purpose.
What purpose is served by banning homosexual marriage? The only
purpose I can see is that the smug moral superiority and righteous
indignation of certain fundamentalist religious cults gets diminished.
Well, that is a terrible loss. Not.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pavil Natanovich" |
|
| Title: Re: Undermining Society's Morals |
30 Nov 2003 11:34:25 AM |
|
|
(Papa Jack) wrote in message news:<6f9e1b49.0311291045.5e0d1b13@posting.google.com>...
==========================================================
Papa Jack replied:
That's not the point, Purple. The point is that the courts
are exceeding their authority in ways not covered by
the Constitution.
Griswold v Connecticut was a key decision in the
power grab by the Supreme Court. Go to:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=volpage&court=us&vol=381&page=484#484
Justice Black wrote a foreboding dissent:
"...I repeat so as not to be misunderstood that this
Court does have power, which it should exercise, to
hold laws unconstitutional where they are forbidden
by the Federal Constitution. My point is that THERE
IS NO PROVISION [381 U.S. 479, 521] OF THE CONSTITU-
TION WHICH EITHER EXPRESSLYO OR IMPLIEDLY VESTS POWER
IN THIS COURT TO SIT AS A SUPERVIOSRY AGANCY OVER
ACTS OF DULY CONSTITUTED LEGISLATIVE BODIES AND SET
ASIDE THEIR LAWS BECAUSE OF THE COURT'S BELIEF THAT
THE LEGISLATIVE POLICIES ADOPTED ARE UNREASONABLE,
UNWISE, ARBITRARY, CAPRICIOUS, OR IRRATIONAL. The
adoption of such a loose, flexible, uncontrolled
standard for holding laws unconstitutional, if ever
it is finally achieved, will amount to a great
unconstitutional shift of power to the courts which
I believe and am constrained to say will be bad for
the courts and worse for the country. Subjecting
federal and state laws to such an unrestrained and
unrestrainable judicial control as to the wisdom of
legislative enactments would, I fear, jeopardize the
separation of governmental powers that the Framers
set up and at the same time threaten to take away
much of the power of States to govern themselves
which the Constitution plainly intended them to
have." 16 [381 U.S. 479, 522]
IOW, it's not the job of the courts to decide such matters.
It's the job of the legislatures.
It is too bad we cannot seem to elect legislative bodies with more
common sense.
==========================================================
Purple wrote:
Aside from self interest and arbitrary moral codes what
alternatives are there to cost-benefit analysis?
==========================================================
Papa Jack replied:
The proper alternative is to allow the legislatures
to establish the moral codes of the community (within
the limitations specifically established by the
Constitution).
For example, a simple cost-benefit analysis might find
that it wasn't economical to continue to have a Child
Protection Agency. After all, who is to decide what
is and what is not "child abuse?" If a particular
father believes beating his 3-year old daughter with a
baseball bat is the proper way to discipline her when
she misbehaves, who is to say he's wrong? Think about it.
Is this the best you can do? You think about it. You'd be hard
pressed to dredge up anyone, even the most ardent anti-government
libertarian, who endorses parental rights to child abuse.
Cost-benefit probably would NOT demonstrate economic incentives for
the prevention of child abuse. Medical and funeral costs would be
borne by the abusive parents, not the state. Child protection
agencies are an economic drain all the way around, and beyond the
"proper" role of government, at least from fundamentalist christian
perspectives. A few argue CPS should be abolished, but these same
folks make this case on the grounds CPS is a local police issue.
==========================================================
Purple wrote:
Eh? What is the denial of the right to legal marriage for
gay couples if not an infringement of their liberty?
==========================================================
Papa Jack replied:
What is the denial of the right of bank robbers
to rob banks if not an infringement of their
liberty?
Papa Jack, examine your arguments for some shred of merit before you
launch them. This argument is like cast iron colander. It don't
float.
Bank robbers infringe upon the liberty of their victims. Who are the
victims in a gay marriage? Whose liberties are previously denied when
gay couples wed? Stand back from your emotional investment in this
issue for a moment, Jack. The fog of prejudice has dimmed your
vision.
See, you are making a false assumption. The
Constitution does NOT give us the right to do
however we may want to do, regardless of
consequences.
Essentially, it does. An overriding interest must be demonstrated
before any legal intervention can be deemed justified. I am happy to
provide examples. The state may not, for example, ban marital aids.
Some states have sought to ban birth control devices such as condoms,
and sex toys. The problem with such legislation is that it is
frivolous, yes, but even more important it needlessly encroaches on
one's right to privacy. What compelling interest does the state have
for banning condoms or vibrators? Is there a public health issue?
Product liability issues? Interstate trade questions?
The right to privacy is not enumerated in the bill of rights. But it
does not have to be. The bill of rights is not a comprehensive list
of rights reserved too the citizens, protections against the federal
government alone. Instead it serves as a template of the types of
rights and freedoms US citizens may enjoy and expect.
By the reasoning of those who argue otherwise, a state ought to be
able to monitor your activities (remember, you have no consitutional
right to privacy), and arrest you for the crime of masturbation, for
example, without even bothering to pass a law against it to begin
with. Your right to masturbate, Papa Jack, is not guaranteed by the
bill of rights, or any other part of the constitution.
Again, let's return to Griswold v Connecticut. Go to:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=381&invol=479
Justice Douglas wrote the fateful word that led to the
unjustified power grab by the Supreme Court:
" The foregoing cases suggest that
"...specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights
have penumbras, formed by emanations from
those guarantees that help give them life
and substance. ..."
Now those fancy words sound really impressive until
one stops to realize Douglas was claiming the court
was now free to find NEW rights whenever it so pleased
them. They were no longer bound by the actual WORDS
of the Constitution.
They never were. This is what interpretation is all about, Papa Jack.
The court gets to define and interpret the meaning of the sacred
texts.
==========================================================
Papa Jack quoted:
"...This damage is not merely
inflicted on government, trampling as it does the so-
called "separation of powers." It does much worse, for
when judges erode the power of the people's representa-
tives to set society's moral compass, they likewise
undercut the authority of parents, schools and other
community groups to set the standards they would
like to see their children and fellow citizens live by.
Indeed, it is a frontal assault on community values
writ large. ...
==========================================================
Purple wrote:
Why do you consider pointless conformism better than
allowing individual's to seek happiness in their own
way?
==========================================================
Papa Jack replied:
Who said anything at all about "pointless conformism?"
I think all Americans, liberals and conservatives,
love liberty and choice. However, as shown by Willam
Golding, in his classic _Lord of the Flies_, "men are
inherently evil; if left alone to fend for themselves,
they will revert back to the savage roots of their
ancestors."
http://www.novelguide.com/lordoftheflies/themeanalysis.html
The Lord of the Flies is classic literature. It is also fiction. And
you wish to base legal precedent upon this?
What about Robinson Crusoe? He was left alone, to fend for himself,
and lived most nobly and honorably. I'm sure for every example of
fiction you can find to support your argument I can invent another to
oppose it.
Every law is rooted in conformity. Penalties are meted out to those
who do not conform. Regardless of the stipulations of the law, you
are free to create and enforce standards for your children, insofar as
these meet with the approval of your spouse(s).
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Purple" |
|
| Title: Re: Undermining Society's Morals |
30 Nov 2003 08:08:56 AM |
|
|
(Papa Jack) wrote in message news:<6f9e1b49.0311291045.5e0d1b13@posting.google.com>...
purple2510@hotmail.com (Purple) wrote in message
news:<9e034035.0311281727.23be1ad5@posting.google.com>...
(Papa Jack) wrote in message
news:<6f9e1b49.0311280923.1d636c47@posting.google.com>...
==========================================================
Papa Jack cited:
On November 28, 2003. the Washington Post included
an article by Alan Charles Raul titled: "Undermining
Society's Morals." Go to:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17611-2003Nov27.html
___________________________________________________________________
"The promotion of gay marriage is not the most devastating
aspect of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's
recent decision. The more destructive impact of the deci-
sion for society is the court's insidious denial of morality
itself as a rational basis for legislation. This observation
is not hyperbole or a mere rhetorical characterization of
the Goodridge v. Department of Public Health decision.
The Massachusetts justices actually quoted two opinions
of the U.S. Supreme Court (the recent anti-anti-sodomy
ruling in Lawrence v. Texas and an older anti-antiabor-
tion ruling, Planned Parenthood v. Casey) to support
the proposition that the legislature may not "mandate [a]
moral code" for society at large. The courts, it would
seem, have read a fundamental political choice into the
Constitution that is not apparent from the face of the
document itself -- that is, that individual desires must
necessarily trump community interests whenever impor-
tant issues are at stake....
==========================================================
Purple wrote:
Note that the author never troubles to explain how community
interests are served by denying women the right to abortion
or allowing gay's the right to be legally married. This is
the problem with much conservative thinking - they don't
seem to need to prove that something causes anyone any
harm in order to condemn it as 'immoral'
==========================================================
Papa Jack replied:
That's not the point, Purple. The point is that the courts
are exceeding their authority in ways not covered by
the Constitution.
Griswold v Connecticut was a key decision in the
power grab by the Supreme Court. Go to:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=volpage&court=us&vol=381&page=484#484
Justice Black wrote a foreboding dissent:
"...I repeat so as not to be misunderstood that this
Court does have power, which it should exercise, to
hold laws unconstitutional where they are forbidden
by the Federal Constitution. My point is that THERE
IS NO PROVISION [381 U.S. 479, 521] OF THE CONSTITU-
TION WHICH EITHER EXPRESSLYO OR IMPLIEDLY VESTS POWER
IN THIS COURT TO SIT AS A SUPERVIOSRY AGANCY OVER
ACTS OF DULY CONSTITUTED LEGISLATIVE BODIES AND SET
ASIDE THEIR LAWS BECAUSE OF THE COURT'S BELIEF THAT
THE LEGISLATIVE POLICIES ADOPTED ARE UNREASONABLE,
UNWISE, ARBITRARY, CAPRICIOUS, OR IRRATIONAL. The
adoption of such a loose, flexible, uncontrolled
standard for holding laws unconstitutional, if ever
it is finally achieved, will amount to a great
unconstitutional shift of power to the courts which
I believe and am constrained to say will be bad for
the courts and worse for the country. Subjecting
federal and state laws to such an unrestrained and
unrestrainable judicial control as to the wisdom of
legislative enactments would, I fear, jeopardize the
separation of governmental powers that the Framers
set up and at the same time threaten to take away
much of the power of States to govern themselves
which the Constitution plainly intended them to
have." 16 [381 U.S. 479, 522]>
IOW, it's not the job of the courts to decide
such matters.
It's the job of the legislatures.
Ok. I agree with the court's decision in this case but can
now see that this distracted me from considering the underlying
issue that they are overstepping their mandate. I don't
really know enough about the American legal system to comment but
you appear to have explained the problem well. Thanks.
Papa Jack quoted:
"These judicial pronouncements, therefore, constitute an
appalling abnegation of popular sovereignty.In a republi-
can form of government, which the Constitution guaran-
tees for the United States, elected officials are meant to
set social policy for the country. They do so by embod-
ying their view of America's moral choices in law. (This
is a particularly crucial manner for propagating morality
in our republic because the Constitution rightly forbids
the establishment of religion, the other major social
vehicle for advancing morality across society.) In reality,
legislatures discharge their moral mandates all the time,
and not just in controversial areas such as abortion, gay
rights, pornography and the like.
"Animal rights, protection of endangered species, many
zoning laws and a great deal of environmental protection
-- especially wilderness conservation -- are based on
moral imperatives (as well as related aesthetic prefer-
ences). Though utilitarian arguments can be offered to
salvage these kinds of laws, those arguments in truth
amount to mere rationalizations. The fact is that a major-
ity of society wants its elected representatives to pre-
serve, protect and promote these values independent
of traditional cost-benefit, "what have you done for me
lately" kind of analysis. ...
==========================================================
Purple wrote:
Aside from self interest and arbitrary moral codes what
alternatives are there to cost-benefit analysis?
==========================================================
Papa Jack replied:
The proper alternative is to allow the legislatures
to establish the moral codes of the community (within
the limitations specifically established by the
Constitution).
Agreed but the legislaure must ensure that the moral codes,
they establish are actually useful.
For example, a simple cost-benefit analysis might find
that it wasn't economical to continue to have a Child
Protection Agency. After all, who is to decide what
is and what is not "child abuse?" If a particular
father believes beating his 3-year old daughter with a
baseball bat is the proper way to discipline her when
she misbehaves, who is to say he's wrong? Think about it.
If an institution is found to be unjustified by a cost-benefit
analysis than it is my premise that either the institution should
be scrapped *or* that a mistake was made in the cost-benefit
analysis. I believe it is unlikely that a good cost-benefit analysis
would conclude that protecting children from abuse created more
problems than it solved. However it is plausible that it may
decide that a Child Protection Agency is not the best way of
providing the protection.
Papa Jack quoted:
"... Indeed, some of these choices
can and do infringe individual liberty considerably: for
example, protecting spotted owl habitat over jobs
puts a lot of loggers out of work and their families in
extremis. Likewise, zoning restrictions can deprive
individuals of their ability to use their property and
live their lives as they might otherwise prefer. Fre-
quently, the socially constrained individuals will sue
the state claiming that such legal restrictions "take"
property or deprive them of "liberty" in violation of
the Fifth Amendment, or constitute arbitrary and
capricious governmental action. And while such plain-
tiffs sometimes do and should prevail in advancing
their individual interests over those of the broader
community, no one contends that the government does
not have the legitimate power to promote the general
welfare as popularly defined (subject, of course, to
the specific constitutional rights of individuals and
due regard for the protection of discrete and insular
minorities bereft of meaningful political influence).
"Even the much maligned tax code is a congeries of
collective, moral preferences. Favoring home owner-
ship over renting has,to be sure, certain utilitarian
justifications. But the fact is that we collectively
believe that the country benefits from the moral
strength growing out of families owning and investing
in their own homes. Likewise, the tax deduction for
charitable contributions is fundamentally grounded in
the social desire to support good deeds. Our society,
moreover, puts its money (and lives) where its heart is:
We have gone to war on more than one occasion because
it was the morally correct thing to do. So courts that
deny morality as a rational basis for legislation are
not only undermining the moral fabric of society, they
run directly counter to actual legislative practice in
innumerable important areas of society. We must recog-
nize that what the Massachusetts court has done is not
preserve liberty but merely substitute its own moral
code for that of the people....
==========================================================
Purple wrote:
Eh? What is the denial of the right to legal marriage for
gay couples if not an infringement of their liberty?
==========================================================
Papa Jack replied:
What is the denial of the right of bank robbers
to rob banks if not an infringement of their
liberty?
In my view there is a very important difference between the
two examples. It is difficult to argue that the use of force
to take that which you have not earned would not make our
life experiences as a whole considerably less pleasant.
Therefore the law against robbing banks is the imposition
of a *useful* morality. However it is difficult to argue
that anyone is harmed by legally recognising gay marriages.
Therefore failure to do so is to impose a morality which
enslaves people rather than serving them.
[snipped remainder of text rather than reproduce my replies above]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Papa Jack" |
|
| Title: Re: Undermining Society's Morals |
02 Dec 2003 05:47:34 PM |
|
|
purple2510@hotmail.com (Purple) wrote in message
news:<9e034035.0311300608.32cff71c@posting.google.com>...
papajack@stic.net (Papa Jack) wrote:
purple2510@hotmail.com (Purple) wrote:
papajack@stic.net (Papa Jack) wrote:
====================================================================
[snip]
====================================================================
Papa Jack quoted (continued):
"These judicial pronouncements, therefore, constitute an
appalling abnegation of popular sovereignty.In a republi-
can form of government, which the Constitution guaran-
tees for the United States, elected officials are meant to
set social policy for the country. They do so by embod-
ying their view of America's moral choices in law. (This
is a particularly crucial manner for propagating morality
in our republic because the Constitution rightly forbids
the establishment of religion, the other major social
vehicle for advancing morality across society.) In reality,
legislatures discharge their moral mandates all the time,
and not just in controversial areas such as abortion, gay
rights, pornography and the like.
"Animal rights, protection of endangered species, many
zoning laws and a great deal of environmental protection
-- especially wilderness conservation -- are based on
moral imperatives (as well as related aesthetic prefer-
ences). Though utilitarian arguments can be offered to
salvage these kinds of laws, those arguments in truth
amount to mere rationalizations. The fact is that a major-
ity of society wants its elected representatives to pre-
serve, protect and promote these values independent
of traditional cost-benefit, "what have you done for me
lately" kind of analysis. ...
====================================================================
Purple wrote:
Aside from self interest and arbitrary moral codes what
alternatives are there to cost-benefit analysis?
====================================================================
Papa Jack wrote:
The proper alternative is to allow the legislatures
to establish the moral codes of the community (within
the limitations specifically established by the
Constitution).
====================================================================
Purple wrote:
Agreed but the legislaure must ensure that the moral codes,
they establish are actually useful.
====================================================================
Papa Jack remarked:
There are no guarantees in democracy, Purple. Character
is one of the primary factors people should consider when
deciding who to vote for. Unfortunately, too many
politicians get very adept at faking it.
That's why it's so important that ordinary citizens
pay attention to what the legislators are doing --
or failing to do.
But, with legislators, we can vote them out if a
majority becomes dissatisfied. OTOH, federal
judges are appointed for life.
====================================================================
Papa Jack wrote:
For example, a simple cost-benefit analysis might find
that it wasn't economical to continue to have a Child
Protection Agency. After all, who is to decide what
is and what is not "child abuse?" If a particular
father believes beating his 3-year old daughter with a
baseball bat is the proper way to discipline her when
she misbehaves, who is to say he's wrong? Think about it.
====================================================================
Purple wrote:
If an institution is found to be unjustified by a cost-benefit
analysis than it is my premise that either the institution should
be scrapped *or* that a mistake was made in the cost-benefit
analysis. I believe it is unlikely that a good cost-benefit analysis
would conclude that protecting children from abuse created more
problems than it solved. However it is plausible that it may
decide that a Child Protection Agency is not the best way of
providing the protection.
====================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
It's nice to try to use the mathematical models of
cost-benefit analysis -- but, those models just don't
cover everything in life.
Example, I was a security police officer in the
Air Force for 26 years. I remember being tasked
to justify spending several million dollars for
sensor equipment. Now the generals want solid
numbers when you start talking about that sort of
money. So, how do you measure and quantify how
much safer a nuclear loaded aircraft is after
sensors are installed than it was before. They
don't want to hear' adjectives -- they want numbers.
It was difficult to find ways to provide such numbers.
I believe our legislators face many such issues which
are difficult to accurately measure.
====================================================================
Papa Jack quoted:
"... Indeed, some of these choices
can and do infringe individual liberty considerably: for
example, protecting spotted owl habitat over jobs
puts a lot of loggers out of work and their families in
extremis. Likewise, zoning restrictions can deprive
individuals of their ability to use their property and
live their lives as they might otherwise prefer. Fre-
quently, the socially constrained individuals will sue
the state claiming that such legal restrictions "take"
property or deprive them of "liberty" in violation of
the Fifth Amendment, or constitute arbitrary and
capricious governmental action. And while such plain-
tiffs sometimes do and should prevail in advancing
their individual interests over those of the broader
community, no one contends that the government does
not have the legitimate power to promote the general
welfare as popularly defined (subject, of course, to
the specific constitutional rights of individuals and
due regard for the protection of discrete and insular
minorities bereft of meaningful political influence).
"Even the much maligned tax code is a congeries of
collective, moral preferences. Favoring home owner-
ship over renting has,to be sure, certain utilitarian
justifications. But the fact is that we collectively
believe that the country benefits from the moral
strength growing out of families owning and investing
in their own homes. Likewise, the tax deduction for
charitable contributions is fundamentally grounded in
the social desire to support good deeds. Our society,
moreover, puts its money (and lives) where its heart is:
We have gone to war on more than one occasion because
it was the morally correct thing to do. So courts that
deny morality as a rational basis for legislation are
not only undermining the moral fabric of society, they
run directly counter to actual legislative practice in
innumerable important areas of society. We must recog-
nize that what the Massachusetts court has done is not
preserve liberty but merely substitute its own moral
code for that of the people....
====================================================================
Purple wrote:
Eh? What is the denial of the right to legal marriage for
gay couples if not an infringement of their liberty?
====================================================================
Papa Jack replied:
What is the denial of the right of bank robbers
to rob banks if not an infringement of their
liberty?
See, you are making a false assumption. The
Constitution does NOT give us the right to do
however we may want to do, regardless of
consequences.
====================================================================
Purple wrote:
In my view there is a very important difference between the
two examples. It is difficult to argue that the use of force
to take that which you have not earned would not make our
life experiences as a whole considerably less pleasant.
Therefore the law against robbing banks is the imposition
of a *useful* morality. However it is difficult to argue
that anyone is harmed by legally recognising gay marriages.
Therefore failure to do so is to impose a morality which
enslaves people rather than serving them.
[snipped remainder of text rather than reproduce my replies above]
====================================================================
Papa Jack replied:
"Enslaves?" That's a bit strong, don't you think?
On Dec. 2, 2003, the NY Times posted an article by
Clifford Krauss titled: "Canada's View on Social Issues
Is Opening Rifts With the U.S.." Go to:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nyt/20031202/ts_nyt/canadasviewonsocialissuesisopeningriftswiththeus
"...Contrast that with Canada, where two provincial
courts issued similar rulings this year. With little
anguish, Canada became only the third country
after the Netherlands and Belgium to allow same-
sex marriage as a matter of civil rights...."
Thus, you're arguing that every other country in the
world except Canada, the Netherlands, and Belgiumis
is enslaving people by refusing to allow same-sex
marriages?
Purple, you must keep in mind that homosexual acts
were CRIMINAL until very recently. Therefore, many
folks are still trying adjust to the idea that such
behavior is not criminal. It's a big step for such
people to move from decriminalizing homosexual acts
to giving it the official sanctions of the state by
allowing marriage. That's why this is not an easy
question for the legislators to decide.
Happy holidays.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Purple" |
|
| Title: Re: Undermining Society's Morals |
04 Dec 2003 08:41:55 PM |
|
|
(Papa Jack) wrote in message news:<6f9e1b49.0312021547.4bed1d9a@posting.google.com>...
[snip]
====================================================================
Purple wrote:
Aside from self interest and arbitrary moral codes what
alternatives are there to cost-benefit analysis?
====================================================================
Papa Jack wrote:
The proper alternative is to allow the legislatures
to establish the moral codes of the community (within
the limitations specifically established by the
Constitution).
====================================================================
Purple wrote:
Agreed but the legislaure must ensure that the moral codes,
they establish are actually useful.
====================================================================
Papa Jack remarked:
There are no guarantees in democracy, Purple. Character
is one of the primary factors people should consider when
deciding who to vote for. Unfortunately, too many
politicians get very adept at faking it.
That's why it's so important that ordinary citizens
pay attention to what the legislators are doing --
or failing to do.
But, with legislators, we can vote them out if a
majority becomes dissatisfied. OTOH, federal
judges are appointed for life.
This is true. I believe democracy is a necessity because it provides
people with a better way of changing bad governments than force of
arms. However it is still very far from ideal.
====================================================================
Papa Jack wrote:
For example, a simple cost-benefit analysis might find
that it wasn't economical to continue to have a Child
Protection Agency. After all, who is to decide what
is and what is not "child abuse?" If a particular
father believes beating his 3-year old daughter with a
baseball bat is the proper way to discipline her when
she misbehaves, who is to say he's wrong? Think about it.
====================================================================
Purple wrote:
If an institution is found to be unjustified by a cost-benefit
analysis than it is my premise that either the institution should
be scrapped *or* that a mistake was made in the cost-benefit
analysis. I believe it is unlikely that a good cost-benefit analysis
would conclude that protecting children from abuse created more
problems than it solved. However it is plausible that it may
decide that a Child Protection Agency is not the best way of
providing the protection.
====================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
It's nice to try to use the mathematical models of
cost-benefit analysis -- but, those models just don't
cover everything in life.
No. You can't establish the exact consequences of any decision.
You just have to gather as much information as possible and
make an intuitive judgement as to whether the good outweighs the
bad.
Example, I was a security police officer in the
Air Force for 26 years. I remember being tasked
to justify spending several million dollars for
sensor equipment. Now the generals want solid
numbers when you start talking about that sort of
money. So, how do you measure and quantify how
much safer a nuclear loaded aircraft is after
sensors are installed than it was before. They
don't want to hear' adjectives -- they want numbers.
It was difficult to find ways to provide such numbers.
I believe our legislators face many such issues which
are difficult to accurately measure.
i'm sure they do.
[snip]
Purple wrote:
Eh? What is the denial of the right to legal marriage for
gay couples if not an infringement of their liberty?
====================================================================
Papa Jack replied:
What is the denial of the right of bank robbers
to rob banks if not an infringement of their
liberty?
See, you are making a false assumption. The
Constitution does NOT give us the right to do
however we may want to do, regardless of
consequences.
====================================================================
Purple wrote:
In my view there is a very important difference between the
two examples. It is difficult to argue that the use of force
to take that which you have not earned would not make our
life experiences as a whole considerably less pleasant.
Therefore the law against robbing banks is the imposition
of a *useful* morality. However it is difficult to argue
that anyone is harmed by legally recognising gay marriages.
Therefore failure to do so is to impose a morality which
enslaves people rather than serving them.
[snipped remainder of text rather than reproduce my replies above]
====================================================================
Papa Jack replied:
"Enslaves?" That's a bit strong, don't you think?
I stand by my use of the term because I believe the policy is based
on the insidious assumption that homosexual relationships are inherently
less moral than heterosexual ones. Most people are not significantly
affected by this moral judgement but for naturally homosexual people,
who chose or are forced to accept the code, it is restrictive. Compared
to many issues the failure of government to recognise gay marriage is
not very serious but I find the attitudes behind this failure distasteful.
On Dec. 2, 2003, the NY Times posted an article by
Clifford Krauss titled: "Canada's View on Social Issues
Is Opening Rifts With the U.S.." Go to:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nyt/20031202/ts_nyt/canadasviewonsocialissuesisopeningriftswiththeus
"...Contrast that with Canada, where two provincial
courts issued similar rulings this year. With little
anguish, Canada became only the third country
after the Netherlands and Belgium to allow same-
sex marriage as a matter of civil rights...."
Thus, you're arguing that every other country in the
world except Canada, the Netherlands, and Belgiumis
is enslaving people by refusing to allow same-sex
marriages?
I believe that by not allowing gay marriages they are
reducing the liberty of their people for no good reason.
This reduction is not nearly serious enough to classify
as enslavement. In this sense my use of the term was an
exaggeration.
Purple, you must keep in mind that homosexual acts
were CRIMINAL until very recently. Therefore, many
folks are still trying adjust to the idea that such
behavior is not criminal. It's a big step for such
people to move from decriminalizing homosexual acts
to giving it the official sanctions of the state by
allowing marriage. That's why this is not an easy
question for the legislators to decide.
I accept that bad legislation is not necessarily the
fault of the current legislators. There are many things,
which need changing more urgently than the laws on gay
marriages.
Happy holidays.
You too.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Undermining Society's Morals |
02 Dec 2003 11:32:16 PM |
|
|
Papa Jackass <papajack@stic.net> wrote:
There are no guarantees in democracy, Purple. Character
is one of the primary factors people should consider when
deciding who to vote for. Unfortunately, too many
politicians get very adept at faking it.
For example: Should one vote for somebody who has repeatedly lied to
the American people while pretending piety and concern for Americans?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Undermining Society's Morals |
03 Dec 2003 12:01:18 AM |
|
|
In article <bqjsgv$t4e$1@bolt.sonic.net>, Ray Fischer
<rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote:
Papa Jackass <papajack@stic.net> wrote:
There are no guarantees in democracy, Purple. Character
is one of the primary factors people should consider when
deciding who to vote for. Unfortunately, too many
politicians get very adept at faking it.
For example: Should one vote for somebody who has repeatedly lied to
the American people while pretending piety and concern for Americans?
Besides, as he tried to claim earlier, one person, the President, is
only a "minority." Why should he be given more say than anyone else?
LOL.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Undermining Society's Morals |
03 Dec 2003 12:04:05 AM |
|
|
In article <bqjsgv$t4e$1@bolt.sonic.net>, Ray Fischer
<rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote:
Papa Jackass <papajack@stic.net> wrote:
There are no guarantees in democracy, Purple. Character
is one of the primary factors people should consider when
deciding who to vote for. Unfortunately, too many
politicians get very adept at faking it.
For example: Should one vote for somebody who has repeatedly lied to
the American people while pretending piety and concern for Americans?
Here is the latest example:
<http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/12/02/sprj.nirq.bush.pilot/index.ht
ml>
Bush never let the truth get in the way of a good PR stunt at the
taxpayers expense. And the conservatives, with their "morals" just
look the other way.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Purple" |
|
| Title: Re: Undermining Society's Morals |
30 Nov 2003 08:10:46 AM |
|
|
(Papa Jack) wrote in message news:<6f9e1b49.0311291045.5e0d1b13@posting.google.com>...
purple2510@hotmail.com (Purple) wrote in message
news:<9e034035.0311281727.23be1ad5@posting.google.com>...
(Papa Jack) wrote in message
news:<6f9e1b49.0311280923.1d636c47@posting.google.com>...
==========================================================
Papa Jack cited:
On November 28, 2003. the Washington Post included
an article by Alan Charles Raul titled: "Undermining
Society's Morals." Go to:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17611-2003Nov27.html
___________________________________________________________________
"The promotion of gay marriage is not the most devastating
aspect of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's
recent decision. The more destructive impact of the deci-
sion for society is the court's insidious denial of morality
itself as a rational basis for legislation. This observation
is not hyperbole or a mere rhetorical characterization of
the Goodridge v. Department of Public Health decision.
The Massachusetts justices actually quoted two opinions
of the U.S. Supreme Court (the recent anti-anti-sodomy
ruling in Lawrence v. Texas and an older anti-antiabor-
tion ruling, Planned Parenthood v. Casey) to support
the proposition that the legislature may not "mandate [a]
moral code" for society at large. The courts, it would
seem, have read a fundamental political choice into the
Constitution that is not apparent from the face of the
document itself -- that is, that individual desires must
necessarily trump community interests whenever impor-
tant issues are at stake....
==========================================================
Purple wrote:
Note that the author never troubles to explain how community
interests are served by denying women the right to abortion
or allowing gay's the right to be legally married. This is
the problem with much conservative thinking - they don't
seem to need to prove that something causes anyone any
harm in order to condemn it as 'immoral'
==========================================================
Papa Jack replied:
That's not the point, Purple. The point is that the courts
are exceeding their authority in ways not covered by
the Constitution.
Griswold v Connecticut was a key decision in the
power grab by the Supreme Court. Go to:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=volpage&court=us&vol=381&page=484#484
Justice Black wrote a foreboding dissent:
"...I repeat so as not to be misunderstood that this
Court does have power, which it should exercise, to
hold laws unconstitutional where they are forbidden
by the Federal Constitution. My point is that THERE
IS NO PROVISION [381 U.S. 479, 521] OF THE CONSTITU-
TION WHICH EITHER EXPRESSLYO OR IMPLIEDLY VESTS POWER
IN THIS COURT TO SIT AS A SUPERVIOSRY AGANCY OVER
ACTS OF DULY CONSTITUTED LEGISLATIVE BODIES AND SET
ASIDE THEIR LAWS BECAUSE OF THE COURT'S BELIEF THAT
THE LEGISLATIVE POLICIES ADOPTED ARE UNREASONABLE,
UNWISE, ARBITRARY, CAPRICIOUS, OR IRRATIONAL. The
adoption of such a loose, flexible, uncontrolled
standard for holding laws unconstitutional, if ever
it is finally achieved, will amount to a great
unconstitutional shift of power to the courts which
I believe and am constrained to say will be bad for
the courts and worse for the country. Subjecting
federal and state laws to such an unrestrained and
unrestrainable judicial control as to the wisdom of
legislative enactments would, I fear, jeopardize the
separation of governmental powers that the Framers
set up and at the same time threaten to take away
much of the power of States to govern themselves
which the Constitution plainly intended them to
have." 16 [381 U.S. 479, 522]>
IOW, it's not the job of the courts to decide
such matters.
It's the job of the legislatures.
Ok. I agree with the court's decision in this case but can
now see that this distracted me from considering the underlying
issue that they are overstepping their mandate. I don't
really know enough about the American legal system to comment but
you appear to have explained the problem well. Thanks.
Papa Jack quoted:
"These judicial pronouncements, therefore, constitute an
appalling abnegation of popular sovereignty.In a republi-
can form of government, which the Constitution guaran-
tees for the United States, elected officials are meant to
set social policy for the country. They do so by embod-
ying their view of America's moral choices in law. (This
is a particularly crucial manner for propagating morality
in our republic because the Constitution rightly forbids
the establishment of religion, the other major social
vehicle for advancing morality across society.) In reality,
legislatures discharge their moral mandates all the time,
and not just in controversial areas such as abortion, gay
rights, pornography and the like.
"Animal rights, protection of endangered species, many
zoning laws and a great deal of environmental protection
-- especially wilderness conservation -- are based on
moral imperatives (as well as related aesthetic prefer-
ences). Though utilitarian arguments can be offered to
salvage these kinds of laws, those arguments in truth
amount to mere rationalizations. The fact is that a major-
ity of society wants its elected representatives to pre-
serve, protect and promote these values independent
of traditional cost-benefit, "what have you done for me
lately" kind of analysis. ...
==========================================================
Purple wrote:
Aside from self interest and arbitrary moral codes what
alternatives are there to cost-benefit analysis?
==========================================================
Papa Jack replied:
The proper alternative is to allow the legislatures
to establish the moral codes of the community (within
the limitations specifically established by the
Constitution).
Agreed but the legislaure must ensure that the moral codes,
they establish are actually useful.
For example, a simple cost-benefit analysis might find
that it wasn't economical to continue to have a Child
Protection Agency. After all, who is to decide what
is and what is not "child abuse?" If a particular
father believes beating his 3-year old daughter with a
baseball ba | |
