| Topic: |
Sociology > Education |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
10 Feb 2006 05:15:20 AM |
| Object: |
Alito Asks the Wrong Question |
http://richardsrussell.livejournal.com/39204.html
Alito Asks the Wrong Question
RichardSRussell wrote,
@ 2006-01-11 13:00:00
"I am particularly proud of my contributions in recent cases in which the
government has argued in the Supreme Court that racial and ethnic quotas
should not be allowed and that the Constitution does not protect a right to
an abortion." — Supreme Court Nominee Samuel A. Alito Jr., describing his
contributions, as a government lawyer, to administration legal briefs
I find this quotation deeply disturbing. I believe it disqualifies Alito
from serving on the Supreme Court. Not, however, simply because he
disagrees with abortion. No, it's something that goes much deeper than that
and is a much more profound problem. It's an attitude problem, having to do
with the kind of questions he asks. Alito is far from alone in having this
problem, but in other people it's merely a disappointing failure to pay
attention in high-school civics; in a justice of the US Supreme Court, it
would be a fatal flaw.
I begin with a short civics lesson in 5 bullet points:
• The Constitution contains a list of enumerated powers (things the
government can do to you).
• The Bill of Rights contains a list of individual rights (things the
government can't do to you.)
• The legislative branch (Congress) represents the will of the majority.
• The judicial branch (Supreme Court) protects the rights of the minority.
• The executive branch (President, Cabinet, federal bureaucracy) carries
out the laws.
Aside: As a former state-level bureaucrat myself, I feel compelled at this
point to defend my oft-derided profession. Most of the bureaucracy, most of
the time, does exactly what we expect of it — carry out the laws to the
best of their ability, knowledge, and resources. Things deteriorate
upwards, where power games become more important and government resources
get inappropriately misdirected into rewarding the friends and punishing
the opponents of whoever's then in power. In the case of the current White
House, with its delusions of a heavenly mandate, this comes dangerously
close to the divine right of kings, where some course of action is
inherently "right" simply because the monarch says so. But I digress.
The will of the majority is adequately represented by Congress. Executive
prerogatives are vigorously asserted and defended by the executive branch
itself. ("Mr. Marshall [US Chief Justice, 1801-1835] has made his decision.
Now let him enforce it." — President Andrew Jackson, 1835, as he proceeded
to ignore a court decision and forcibly relocate the Cherokee Indian tribe)
We do not need a Supreme Court to do either of these things. We need a
Supreme Court that will do what it, and it alone, is uniquely positioned to
do: defend the rights of the individual by sticking up for the little guy
against the awesome might and power of the government.
But what's the right course of action in any given case? Here we come to
the crux of the matter, which is knowing what questions to ask.
First a little diversion, a mind trip if you will, a journey of the
imagination to the frontier days of Daniel Boone and Davy Crockett. Here we
see human rights, individual rights, "natural" rights, in their purest
form, simply because there's no government around to say yea or nay. You
want to smoke the evil jimson weed? Go right ahead. Bellow obscene, untrue,
scurrilous, and threatening insults about the president? Nobody's stopping
you. Drain the swamp? There's no DNR to point out that it's a valuable
natural wetland resource and ask to see your permit. Shoot some Indian
braves, steal their women, and enslave their children? Be our guest. Have
an abortion? No problemo! Erect a huge crucifix and nativity scene on top
of the highest hill in the vicinity? Why not?
When governments entered the picture, they naturally started to put the
clamps on some of the things most disagreeable to the nabors, such as all
that shooting and raping business. The government's ability to regulate
anti-social conduct is called the "police power", and it's supposed to be
the exclusive province of the states.
Why so? Because the people who wrote the Constitution (adopted 1787,
ratified 1789) were by and large the same people who had battled a powerful
central government (the British, most powerful military force on the
planet) in the Revolutionary War (1775–1783), and they were justifiably
leery of powerful central governments. (Read the Declaration of
Independence for details.) Therefore, in the Constitution, they gave the
federal government only a limited, carefully worded list (enumeration) of
powers. Things like the police power or legislating on religious matters or
control over education were conspicuously not among them.
But quite a few of these founders, led by George Mason, believed that it
did not suffice merely to say that the federal government had no powers
other than those enumerated in the Constitution. They believed that, in
addition, it was important to list certain rights of the individual that
were sacrosanct.
James Madison, "Father of the Constitution", disagreed. He argued that, as
soon as such a list was established, people would fall into the trap of
believing that the rights so listed were the only rights they had. In other
words, we would drift from (a) a system where the government was prohibited
from doing anything it wasn't specifically permitted to do to (b) a system
where the government was permitted to do anything it wasn't specifically
prohibited from doing.
But Mason and others made the case that Madison's beloved Constitution
would never be ratified by the necessary minimum of 9 states unless there
was a Bill of Rights in the pipeline, and Madison reluctantly conceded.
After ratification, he was as good as his word, serving as primary author
of the Bill of Rights. But, just to underline his original concerns, he
made sure to include the 9th and 10th Amendments:
• #9: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
• #10: "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."
Despite much tortuous reading of the Constitution's "general welfare" and
"interstate commerce" clauses, it remains the case up to the present day
that the federal government has only limited powers.
So let's say an issue like abortion arises. Alito's absolutely right if you
take his words literally. Nowhere in the Constitution does the word
"abortion" appear. It says neither "The government has the power to
regulate or prohibit abortion." nor "Each citizen has the right to
abortion.". It just doesn't say.
So how do we decide? More importantly, how does a Supreme Court justice
decide?
Well, what they're supposed to do is ask the right question. And the right
question is not "Is this right guaranteed in the Bill of Rights?". The
right question is "Where in the Constitution did government get the power
to regulate individual decisions on this matter?". Interstate commerce? I
don't think so!
If Daniel Boone had the right to do X back in 1800, then Joe Schmoe has the
right to do X in 2006, unless the government has been given specific
authority to regulate or prohibit it. Where's the grant of power? That's
the fundamental question.
It is dumfounding that Alito, purported to be a serious Constitutional
scholar, would ask the wrong question.
It is dumfounding that he would do so even in his capacity as a drafter of
government legal briefs, because he'd be trying to convince the Supremes to
do a 180 on the fundamental method of resolving such issues.
It is ridiculous and disingenuous that he has the gall to stand up in
Senate confirmation hearings and firmly assert that he will uphold settled
law. Hell, nobody brings cases of settled law to the Supreme Court. You
think anyone's gonna ask them if it's OK to hold slaves? Of course not!
That's why it's called "settled law". That's the sort of thing that gets
strained out at the lower levels of the judiciary.
The sort of cases the Supremes will get are in the gray areas. "The US is
bound to uphold the Geneva Conventions with regard to prisoners of war, but
suppose we don't call them prisoners of war? Then what?". That kind of
thing.
And, over and above the fact that Alito apparently never saw a repressive
measure that he didn't like or an executive decision he was unwilling to
defer to is the fact that he just doesn't know how to go about asking the
right questions.
If this 55-year-old gets a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court (John
Paul Stevens, currently 85, is still going strong), he won't just be
upholding other people's precedents, he'll be making his own. He'll be
replacing Sandra Day O'Connor, who was the swing vote on countless cases.
It's been said, with some justification, that we are all living in the
America that Sandra Day O'Connor made.
If Alito gets on the Supreme Court, we'll spend the next 30 years living in
the America that Sam Alito made. Sam Alito, asking the wrong questions and,
not surprisingly, getting the wrong answers.
The purpose of government is to do things FOR people, not TO them.
RichardSRussell wrote,
@ 2006-01-11 13:00:00
Alito Asks the Wrong Question
"I am particularly proud of my contributions in recent cases in which the
government has argued in the Supreme Court that racial and ethnic quotas
should not be allowed and that the Constitution does not protect a right to
an abortion." — Supreme Court Nominee Samuel A. Alito Jr., describing his
contributions, as a government lawyer, to administration legal briefs
I find this quotation deeply disturbing. I believe it disqualifies Alito
from serving on the Supreme Court. Not, however, simply because he
disagrees with abortion. No, it's something that goes much deeper than that
and is a much more profound problem. It's an attitude problem, having to do
with the kind of questions he asks. Alito is far from alone in having this
problem, but in other people it's merely a disappointing failure to pay
attention in high-school civics; in a justice of the US Supreme Court, it
would be a fatal flaw.
I begin with a short civics lesson in 5 bullet points:
• The Constitution contains a list of enumerated powers (things the
government can do to you).
• The Bill of Rights contains a list of individual rights (things the
government can't do to you.)
• The legislative branch (Congress) represents the will of the majority.
• The judicial branch (Supreme Court) protects the rights of the minority.
• The executive branch (President, Cabinet, federal bureaucracy) carries
out the laws.
Aside: As a former state-level bureaucrat myself, I feel compelled at this
point to defend my oft-derided profession. Most of the bureaucracy, most of
the time, does exactly what we expect of it — carry out the laws to the
best of their ability, knowledge, and resources. Things deteriorate
upwards, where power games become more important and government resources
get inappropriately misdirected into rewarding the friends and punishing
the opponents of whoever's then in power. In the case of the current White
House, with its delusions of a heavenly mandate, this comes dangerously
close to the divine right of kings, where some course of action is
inherently "right" simply because the monarch says so. But I digress.
The will of the majority is adequately represented by Congress. Executive
prerogatives are vigorously asserted and defended by the executive branch
itself. ("Mr. Marshall [US Chief Justice, 1801-1835] has made his decision.
Now let him enforce it." — President Andrew Jackson, 1835, as he proceeded
to ignore a court decision and forcibly relocate the Cherokee Indian tribe)
We do not need a Supreme Court to do either of these things. We need a
Supreme Court that will do what it, and it alone, is uniquely positioned to
do: defend the rights of the individual by sticking up for the little guy
against the awesome might and power of the government.
But what's the right course of action in any given case? Here we come to
the crux of the matter, which is knowing what questions to ask.
[end excerpt[
.
|
|
| User: "ZenIsWhen" |
|
| Title: Re: Alito Asks the Wrong Question |
10 Feb 2006 11:11:08 AM |
|
|
<buckeye-elo@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:5etou1lvh64kah169aet6758huoldvf5hq@4ax.com...
http://richardsrussell.livejournal.com/39204.html
Alito Asks the Wrong Question
RichardSRussell wrote,
@ 2006-01-11 13:00:00
"I am particularly proud of my contributions in recent cases in which the
government has argued in the Supreme Court that racial and ethnic quotas
should not be allowed and that the Constitution does not protect a right
to
an abortion." - Supreme Court Nominee Samuel A. Alito Jr., describing his
contributions, as a government lawyer, to administration legal briefs
The rebutal point being - it ISN'T a matter of what rights people have -
it's a matter of what powers the STATE assumes.
In R v W, the state of Texas put it upon itself to CLAIM when life begins.
The "state" doesn't have that power; they don't have ANY scientific
support - and they CERTAINLY don't have the intelligence to make that
decision!!!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: Alito Asks the Wrong Question |
10 Feb 2006 06:12:53 PM |
|
|
ZenIsWhen wrote:
<buckeye-elo@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:5etou1lvh64kah169aet6758huoldvf5hq@4ax.com...
http://richardsrussell.livejournal.com/39204.html
Alito Asks the Wrong Question
RichardSRussell wrote,
@ 2006-01-11 13:00:00
"I am particularly proud of my contributions in recent cases in which the
government has argued in the Supreme Court that racial and ethnic quotas
should not be allowed and that the Constitution does not protect a right
to
an abortion." - Supreme Court Nominee Samuel A. Alito Jr., describing his
contributions, as a government lawyer, to administration legal briefs
The rebutal point being - it ISN'T a matter of what rights people have -
it's a matter of what powers the STATE assumes.
In R v W, the state of Texas put it upon itself to CLAIM when life begins.
The "state" doesn't have that power; they don't have ANY scientific
support - and they CERTAINLY don't have the intelligence to make that
decision!!!
Not true. The people, in the form of their elected government, have
the right to make any laws that they want, so long as they don't violate
the Constitution (both Federal and State). That is what Democracy is
all about.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Alito Asks the Wrong Question |
11 Feb 2006 11:35:33 AM |
|
|
"Alan Illeman" <illemann@surfbest.net> wrote:
:|
:|<buckeye-elo@nospam.net> wrote in message news:5etou1lvh64kah169aet6758huoldvf5hq@4ax.com...
:|> http://richardsrussell.livejournal.com/39204.html
:|>
:|> Alito Asks the Wrong Question
:|>
:|> RichardSRussell wrote,
:|[...]
:|
:|You seem to love to swap these ngs with quotes by others
:|but what is your question or comment? And is it really
:|necessary to include so many ngs?
A suggestion, You don't like, put me on ignore.
it won't upset me, really it won't
WHAT I AM ABOUT
(1) The Radical Religious Right/theocrats have been learning and learning
well how to use all aspects of the internet, including the UseNet
newsgroups to further their goals
I am returning the favor My posts take two forms:
(A) Pro strict separation of church and state and consists of various
things from a variety of sources, Prin=may soucre documents, scholars, etc.
including our own website. (My replies fall under this almost exclusively)
(B) Keeping people informed about the opposition by posting things the
theocratic radical religious right is doing, saying, posting publishing
etc.
I usually identify these with the comments "THEOCRACY IN ACTION
Porpaganda, misinformation. misrepresenting, lies, the tools of the
theocrats" for that is what it is
BTW, there are theocrats, i e radical religious right groups and
individuals, thus using that term is not name calling. it is identifying.
The theocrats, the radical religious right do want to set up a theocratic
society. They do not deny it
That is a far cry from the usual labeling or name calling done when people
use terms such as liberals, conservatives, atheists, fundies, and so on and
so forth
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
(2) While I do have some structured formal legal training, and thus am not
just a layman in the area, I am not a lawyer. Therefore, I don't interpret
the Constitution. I leave that to experts who are qualified.
What I do is not at all complicated, though many people seem to
have a hard time dealing with what I do. Based on the reactions to what I
do by many people. Most notably, those that I have provided evidence that
their claims were incorrect. In short, those that were a bit embarrassed.
What I do is summed up in the following:
If one were to read that which I provide (the URLs and my overall
posts/replies that I post) They would see that I not only stated facts, I
provided evidence backing up that which I have posted. I supply
information from experts in the field, usually from more than one source. I
frequently provide the entire document, which makes for long posts, but
also provides the complete context the information existed in originally.
When I provide quotes, I will properly and completely cite that quote,
using the standard rules of citation. Frequently, I will provide primary
source historical and or legal data. I do not merely provide my opinion.
In fact, seldom do I ever provide my opinion. My personal opinion is
irrelevant.
Have I educated? I would hope so. If one would have read the
information that I provided, examined it and explored further...maybe
looked up the works I cited from which if secondary source material is from
some of the best scholars, and respected qualified contemporary thinkers.
If one would have done that, they would have had the potential to have
learned some things.
I am prepared to respond with evidence, and facts, and will state
when something I provide is a personal belief and as already pointed out, I
rarely post my own beliefs so that would be rare.
I am not here to "debate", not here to argue, not here to give
legitimacy by even discussing false, flawed, misrepresenting or otherwise
bogus theories, personal opinions or personal beliefs. I will point out
and rebut with primary and secondary source data, facts, etc each of those
that I find. I will point out each and every improperly cited quote, each
bogus quote and to be quite honest, any improperly cited quote has to be
viewed as being bogus until someone provides a proper cite for it.
If attacked personally, I will give as good as I get. Those who
troll will be so labeled. Those who are more concerned with spreading
propaganda and or unsubstantiated claims and are not are not interested in
facts, truth, etc will be so identified. I am very big on the following:
Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ordinary or extraordinary claims require ordinary or extraordinary proof.
If you're going to claim something and especially something outlandish
you're going to need some pretty extraordinary and/or irrefutable proof to
back up such a claim. "Where's the beef?" Where's the ordinary or
extraordinary proof for their ordinary or extraordinary claims? If one is
not responding with ordinary or extraordinary, *factual* proof, then the
claim is not worth considering
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[ as Homer@nospam said]
Why is asking for "proof" considered truculence? Do you consider it
truculence for a judge to ask for evidence in a trial. Would you rather
that people just testified that they believed in the guilt of the suspect?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
[as Gray Shockley said:]
Your "opinion" is not an adequate citation.
You forgot your citations.
Or, are your opinions more valid than facts?
You do realize, do you not?, that opinion without substantiation is just
propanganda for those without critical thinking abilities and originate
with those who are attempting to manipulate rather than those who are
attempting to clarify.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
I expect people to back up their claims and if their claims have any merit,
they should be able to back them up with evidence from others, properly
cited, of course.
Anyone can be incorrect about something, but once a person has
been shown with evidence that they were incorrect about something, and they
ignore that and continue saying the same things in another thread in
another newsgroup or continue in the same thread and same newsgroup, they
have lost any and all rights to respect and will be so identified for who
and what they are.
A person doesn't have to agree with the material, however, their
saying they don't agree with it, isn't good enough. They are going to have
to show, with their own evidence, point by point, that which I have
provided is "incorrect." After all, that is what I do with the claims they
have made.
I target my posts and replies to the REAL audience. The Real
audience is not the person I am replying to. In all probability, their mind
is already made up. The real audience are those who come into the various
newsgroups and read posts and replies found there, but seldom if ever post
or reply themselves.
The real audience that matters are those who came yesterday will
come today and will come tomorrow and thanks to web crawlers like those run
by Google many, many, many, tomorrows after that. Those are the people who
in time may actually make a difference.
The above is what I am about.
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the US and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alan Illeman" |
|
| Title: Re: Alito Asks the Wrong Question |
11 Feb 2006 08:15:00 PM |
|
|
<buckeye-elo@nospam.net> wrote in message news:c08su11a90mc8bbmpkquqea4n8qd6tg5gv@4ax.com...
"Alan Illeman" <illemann@surfbest.net> wrote:
:|
:|<buckeye-elo@nospam.net> wrote in message news:5etou1lvh64kah169aet6758huoldvf5hq@4ax.com...
:|> http://richardsrussell.livejournal.com/39204.html
:|>
:|> Alito Asks the Wrong Question
:|>
:|> RichardSRussell wrote,
:|[...]
:|
:|You seem to love to swap these ngs with quotes by others
:|but what is your question or comment? And is it really
:|necessary to include so many ngs?
A suggestion, You don't like, put me on ignore.
it won't upset me, really it won't
WHAT I AM ABOUT
(1) The Radical Religious Right/theocrats have been learning and learning
well how to use all aspects of the internet, including the UseNet
newsgroups to further their goals
I am returning the favor My posts take two forms:
(A) Pro strict separation of church and state and consists of various
things from a variety of sources, Prin=may soucre documents, scholars, etc.
including our own website. (My replies fall under this almost exclusively)
(B) Keeping people informed about the opposition by posting things the
theocratic radical religious right is doing, saying, posting publishing
etc.
I usually identify these with the comments "THEOCRACY IN ACTION
Porpaganda, misinformation. misrepresenting, lies, the tools of the
theocrats" for that is what it is
BTW, there are theocrats, i e radical religious right groups and
individuals, thus using that term is not name calling. it is identifying.
The theocrats, the radical religious right do want to set up a theocratic
society. They do not deny it
That is a far cry from the usual labeling or name calling done when people
use terms such as liberals, conservatives, atheists, fundies, and so on and
so forth
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
(2) While I do have some structured formal legal training, and thus am not
just a layman in the area, I am not a lawyer. Therefore, I don't interpret
the Constitution. I leave that to experts who are qualified.
What I do is not at all complicated, though many people seem to
have a hard time dealing with what I do. Based on the reactions to what I
do by many people. Most notably, those that I have provided evidence that
their claims were incorrect. In short, those that were a bit embarrassed.
What I do is summed up in the following:
If one were to read that which I provide (the URLs and my overall
posts/replies that I post) They would see that I not only stated facts, I
provided evidence backing up that which I have posted. I supply
information from experts in the field, usually from more than one source. I
frequently provide the entire document, which makes for long posts, but
also provides the complete context the information existed in originally.
When I provide quotes, I will properly and completely cite that quote,
using the standard rules of citation. Frequently, I will provide primary
source historical and or legal data. I do not merely provide my opinion.
In fact, seldom do I ever provide my opinion. My personal opinion is
irrelevant.
Have I educated? I would hope so. If one would have read the
information that I provided, examined it and explored further...maybe
looked up the works I cited from which if secondary source material is from
some of the best scholars, and respected qualified contemporary thinkers.
If one would have done that, they would have had the potential to have
learned some things.
I am prepared to respond with evidence, and facts, and will state
when something I provide is a personal belief and as already pointed out, I
rarely post my own beliefs so that would be rare.
I am not here to "debate", not here to argue, not here to give
legitimacy by even discussing false, flawed, misrepresenting or otherwise
bogus theories, personal opinions or personal beliefs. I will point out
and rebut with primary and secondary source data, facts, etc each of those
that I find. I will point out each and every improperly cited quote, each
bogus quote and to be quite honest, any improperly cited quote has to be
viewed as being bogus until someone provides a proper cite for it.
If attacked personally, I will give as good as I get. Those who
troll will be so labeled. Those who are more concerned with spreading
propaganda and or unsubstantiated claims and are not are not interested in
facts, truth, etc will be so identified. I am very big on the following:
Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ordinary or extraordinary claims require ordinary or extraordinary proof.
If you're going to claim something and especially something outlandish
you're going to need some pretty extraordinary and/or irrefutable proof to
back up such a claim. "Where's the beef?" Where's the ordinary or
extraordinary proof for their ordinary or extraordinary claims? If one is
not responding with ordinary or extraordinary, *factual* proof, then the
claim is not worth considering
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[ as Homer@nospam said]
Why is asking for "proof" considered truculence? Do you consider it
truculence for a judge to ask for evidence in a trial. Would you rather
that people just testified that they believed in the guilt of the suspect?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
[as Gray Shockley said:]
Your "opinion" is not an adequate citation.
You forgot your citations.
Or, are your opinions more valid than facts?
You do realize, do you not?, that opinion without substantiation is just
propanganda for those without critical thinking abilities and originate
with those who are attempting to manipulate rather than those who are
attempting to clarify.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
I expect people to back up their claims and if their claims have any merit,
they should be able to back them up with evidence from others, properly
cited, of course.
Anyone can be incorrect about something, but once a person has
been shown with evidence that they were incorrect about something, and they
ignore that and continue saying the same things in another thread in
another newsgroup or continue in the same thread and same newsgroup, they
have lost any and all rights to respect and will be so identified for who
and what they are.
A person doesn't have to agree with the material, however, their
saying they don't agree with it, isn't good enough. They are going to have
to show, with their own evidence, point by point, that which I have
provided is "incorrect." After all, that is what I do with the claims they
have made.
I target my posts and replies to the REAL audience. The Real
audience is not the person I am replying to. In all probability, their mind
is already made up. The real audience are those who come into the various
newsgroups and read posts and replies found there, but seldom if ever post
or reply themselves.
The real audience that matters are those who came yesterday will
come today and will come tomorrow and thanks to web crawlers like those run
by Google many, many, many, tomorrows after that. Those are the people who
in time may actually make a difference.
The above is what I am about.
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the US and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
Thanks for your reply, I'll get back to you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alan Illeman" |
|
| Title: Re: Alito Asks the Wrong Question |
12 Feb 2006 07:59:38 AM |
|
|
<buckeye-elo@nospam.net> wrote in message news:c08su11a90mc8bbmpkquqea4n8qd6tg5gv@4ax.com...
WHAT I AM ABOUT
(1) The Radical Religious Right/theocrats have been learning and learning
well how to use all aspects of the internet, including the UseNet
newsgroups to further their goals
I am returning the favor My posts take two forms:
(A) Pro strict separation of church and state and consists of various
things from a variety of sources, Prin=may soucre documents, scholars, etc.
including our own website. (My replies fall under this almost exclusively)
(B) Keeping people informed about the opposition by posting things the
theocratic radical religious right is doing, saying, posting publishing
etc.
[...]
You have provided an enormous quantity of information and to read it all, follow
all the links, and fully understand all the arguments would unfortunately take
more of my time than I have available.
<quote>
"The Despoiling of America"
[..]
As Antonin Scalia, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court explained a few months
later, the Bible teaches and Christians believe “… that government …derives its
moral authority from God. Government is the ‘minister of God’ with powers to
‘revenge,’ to ‘execute wrath,’ including even wrath by the sword…”[3]
</quote>
But when I read the full article by Scalia (re: opposition to the death penalty) I find
the quote above is not directly from him but from St. Paul, so the writer of "The
Despoiling of America" is incorrect in attributing that statement to Scalia.
In other articles it seems that the writers prefer to admonish rather than reason.
Surely you recognise that the beginnings of America were of Christian peoples
and although they didn't want religion to play a leading part in government, they
didn't want to govern without the values of religion either.
"When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to
dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to
assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to
which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect
to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes
which impel them to the separation."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Alito Asks the Wrong Question |
11 Feb 2006 11:28:33 AM |
|
|
"Alan Illeman" <illemann@surfbest.net> wrote:
:|
:|<buckeye-elo@nospam.net> wrote in message news:5etou1lvh64kah169aet6758huoldvf5hq@4ax.com...
:|> http://richardsrussell.livejournal.com/39204.html
:|>
:|> Alito Asks the Wrong Question
:|>
:|> RichardSRussell wrote,
:|[...]
:|
:|You seem to love to swap these ngs with quotes by others
:|but what is your question or comment? And is it really
:|necessary to include so many ngs?
A suggestion, You don't like, put me on ignore.
it won't upset me, really it won't
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the US and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
WHAT I AM ABOUT
(1) The Radical Religious Right/theocrats have been learning and learning
well how to use all aspects of the internet, including the UseNet
newsgroups to further their goals
I am returning the favor My posts take two forms:
(A) Pro strict separation of church and state and consists of various
things from a variety of sources, Prin=may soucre documents, scholars, etc.
including our own website. (My replies fall under this almost exclusively)
(B) Keeping people informed about the opposition by posting things the
theocratic radical religious right is doing, saying, posting publishing
etc.
I usually identify these with the comments "THEOCRACY IN ACTION
Porpaganda, misinformation. misrepresenting, lies, the tools of the
theocrats" for that is what it is
BTW, there are theocrats, i e radical religious right groups and
individuals, thus using that term is not name calling. it is identifying.
The theocrats, the radical religious right do want to set up a theocratic
society. They do not deny it
That is a far cry from the usual labeling or name calling done when people
use terms such as liberals, conservatives, atheists, fundies, and so on and
so forth
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
(2) While I do have some structured formal legal training, and thus am not
just a layman in the area, I am not a lawyer. Therefore, I don't interpret
the Constitution. I leave that to experts who are qualified.
What I do is not at all complicated, though many people seem to
have a hard time dealing with what I do. Based on the reactions to what I
do by many people. Most notably, those that I have provided evidence that
their claims were incorrect. In short, those that were a bit embarrassed.
What I do is summed up in the following:
If one were to read that which I provide (the URLs and my overall
posts/replies that I post) They would see that I not only stated facts, I
provided evidence backing up that which I have posted. I supply
information from experts in the field, usually from more than one source. I
frequently provide the entire document, which makes for long posts, but
also provides the complete context the information existed in originally.
When I provide quotes, I will properly and completely cite that quote,
using the standard rules of citation. Frequently, I will provide primary
source historical and or legal data. I do not merely provide my opinion.
In fact, seldom do I ever provide my opinion. My personal opinion is
irrelevant.
Have I educated? I would hope so. If one would have read the
information that I provided, examined it and explored further...maybe
looked up the works I cited from which if secondary source material is from
some of the best scholars, and respected qualified contemporary thinkers.
If one would have done that, they would have had the potential to have
learned some things.
I am prepared to respond with evidence, and facts, and will state
when something I provide is a personal belief and as already pointed out, I
rarely post my own beliefs so that would be rare.
I am not here to "debate", not here to argue, not here to give
legitimacy by even discussing false, flawed, misrepresenting or otherwise
bogus theories, personal opinions or personal beliefs. I will point out
and rebut with primary and secondary source data, facts, etc each of those
that I find. I will point out each and every improperly cited quote, each
bogus quote and to be quite honest, any improperly cited quote has to be
viewed as being bogus until someone provides a proper cite for it.
If attacked personally, I will give as good as I get. Those who
troll will be so labeled. Those who are more concerned with spreading
propaganda and or unsubstantiated claims and are not are not interested in
facts, truth, etc will be so identified. I am very big on the following:
Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ordinary or extraordinary claims require ordinary or extraordinary proof.
If you're going to claim something and especially something outlandish
you're going to need some pretty extraordinary and/or irrefutable proof to
back up such a claim. "Where's the beef?" Where's the ordinary or
extraordinary proof for their ordinary or extraordinary claims? If one is
not responding with ordinary or extraordinary, *factual* proof, then the
claim is not worth considering
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[ as Homer@nospam said]
Why is asking for "proof" considered truculence? Do you consider it
truculence for a judge to ask for evidence in a trial. Would you rather
that people just testified that they believed in the guilt of the suspect?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
[as Gray Shockley said:]
Your "opinion" is not an adequate citation.
You forgot your citations.
Or, are your opinions more valid than facts?
You do realize, do you not?, that opinion without substantiation is just
propanganda for those without critical thinking abilities and originate
with those who are attempting to manipulate rather than those who are
attempting to clarify.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
I expect people to back up their claims and if their claims have any merit,
they should be able to back them up with evidence from others, properly
cited, of course.
Anyone can be incorrect about something, but once a person has
been shown with evidence that they were incorrect about something, and they
ignore that and continue saying the same things in another thread in
another newsgroup or continue in the same thread and same newsgroup, they
have lost any and all rights to respect and will be so identified for who
and what they are.
A person doesn't have to agree with the material, however, their
saying they don't agree with it, isn't good enough. They are going to have
to show, with their own evidence, point by point, that which I have
provided is "incorrect." After all, that is what I do with the claims they
have made.
I target my posts and replies to the REAL audience. The Real
audience is not the person I am replying to. In all probability, their mind
is already made up. The real audience are those who come into the various
newsgroups and read posts and replies found there, but seldom if ever post
or reply themselves.
The real audience that matters are those who came yesterday will
come today and will come tomorrow and thanks to web crawlers like those run
by Google many, many, many, tomorrows after that. Those are the people who
in time may actually make a difference.
The above is what I am about.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
