| Topic: |
Sociology > Education |
| User: |
"Stan de SD" |
| Date: |
02 Jul 2003 11:13:03 AM |
| Object: |
Re: The US Constitution - a question |
"toto" <scarecrow@wicked.witch> wrote in message
news:6ac4gv4g3n8440q1hhvtr9qcd9gdosehkd@4ax.com...
US Constitution is hopelessly outdated according to some people
I speak to from various other countries of the world.
Yeah, the idea of limited government and individual rights really pisses off
liberals and totalitarian wanna-bes who think they can run our lives better
than we can.
There is some sentiment for this in the US as well. And there is
some sentiment that our present constitution is a problem mainly
because the powers that be have not really adhered to its original
intent and protections for citizens.
Yes, but due to the pressure of people like you who think the US
Constitution is "hopelesslly outdated"... :O(
.
|
|
| User: "Bobby" |
|
| Title: Re: The US Constitution - a question |
02 Jul 2003 12:03:48 PM |
|
|
"Stan de SD" <standesd@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:jwDMa.21863$C83.2076272@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
"toto" <scarecrow@wicked.witch> wrote in message
news:6ac4gv4g3n8440q1hhvtr9qcd9gdosehkd@4ax.com...
US Constitution is hopelessly outdated according to some people
I speak to from various other countries of the world.
Yeah, the idea of limited government and individual rights really pisses
off
liberals and totalitarian wanna-bes who think they can run our lives
better
than we can.
You mean like socialist protection policies such as Chapter 11 Bankruptcy
protection and corperate welfare. The American constitution hardly makes for
'limited government' as im sure 'homeland defence' will testify too or
individual rights in a country where it has only just become legal to bugger
another consenting adult in your own home.
There is some sentiment for this in the US as well. And there is
some sentiment that our present constitution is a problem mainly
because the powers that be have not really adhered to its original
intent and protections for citizens.
Yes, but due to the pressure of people like you who think the US
Constitution is "hopelesslly outdated"... :O(
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "LIBERATOR" |
|
| Title: Re: The US Constitution - a question |
03 Jul 2003 02:18:36 AM |
|
|
"Stan de SD" <standesd@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<jwDMa.21863$C83.2076272@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
"toto" <scarecrow@wicked.witch> wrote in message
news:6ac4gv4g3n8440q1hhvtr9qcd9gdosehkd@4ax.com...
US Constitution is hopelessly outdated according to some people
I speak to from various other countries of the world.
Yeah, the idea of limited government and individual rights really pisses off
liberals and totalitarian wanna-bes who think they can run our lives better
than we can.
There is some sentiment for this in the US as well. And there is
some sentiment that our present constitution is a problem mainly
because the powers that be have not really adhered to its original
intent and protections for citizens.
Yes, but due to the pressure of people like you who think the US
Constitution is "hopelesslly outdated"... :O(
No, it's due to a few billionaires knowing that they could continue to
expand their wealth thus buy every dimension of power with it, by
utilizing propaganda that they manufacture, again with their wealth
and payoffs.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Stewart Millen" |
|
| Title: Re: The US Constitution - a question |
02 Jul 2003 12:30:07 PM |
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
"Stan de SD" <standesd@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:jwDMa.21863$C83.2076272@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net:
"toto" <scarecrow@wicked.witch> wrote in message
news:6ac4gv4g3n8440q1hhvtr9qcd9gdosehkd@4ax.com...
US Constitution is hopelessly outdated according to some
people I speak to from various other countries of the
world.
Yeah, the idea of limited government and individual rights
really pisses off liberals and totalitarian wanna-bes who
think they can run our lives better than we can.
And is "limited government and individual rights" the reason
why Clarence Thomas (noted conservative and Supreme Court
justice) thinks that beating prisoners is Constitutional? Why
Anthony Scalia (noted conservative and US Supreme Court judge)
thinks that governments have the right to regulate private
consensual sexual behavior? Why William Rehnquist (noted
conservative and Supreme Court justice) thinks that it may be OK
in certain cases for public schools to cram the majority's
religion down the throats of other kids?
The whole conservative bugaboo about "original intent" has been
for the most part in opposition to court decisions where
legislatures have tried to *tread on individual rights*, and the
courts stopped them. There it was "the "liberals" were defending
individual rights while the "conservatives" were rallying around
the battlecry of "let legislatures rule!"
Stewart
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 6.5.8ckt http://www.ipgpp.com/
iQCVAwUBPwMWmDSyh6XxoDgRAQFSewQAt5rdRQqH04eC7P2PIC+K1RZZT/BiVLPl
nz/Gd7Ng9VmHTdjHFX3OU0aWNiOLnGnpmZ9QKAs2jR124CL/u/uhkPlbIRiCgJPu
iempRpJPqR0oVHXBOB3ClTVy3tHCmjex6z/mZV3LgZw4wq+Q+fvQC5tfbeOL6x+0
eYfvA/ld3Y0=
=SHCm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: The US Constitution - a question |
02 Jul 2003 10:52:26 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 2 Jul 2003 12:30:07 -0500, Stewart Millen wrote
(in message <Xns93AC89599B749StewartMillenhotmail@130.133.1.4>):
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
"Stan de SD" <standesd@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:jwDMa.21863$C83.2076272@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net:
"toto" <scarecrow@wicked.witch> wrote in message
news:6ac4gv4g3n8440q1hhvtr9qcd9gdosehkd@4ax.com...
US Constitution is hopelessly outdated according to some
people I speak to from various other countries of the
world.
Yeah, the idea of limited government and individual rights
really pisses off liberals and totalitarian wanna-bes who
think they can run our lives better than we can.
And is "limited government and individual rights" the reason
why Clarence Thomas (noted conservative and Supreme Court
justice) thinks that beating prisoners is Constitutional? Why
Anthony Scalia (noted conservative and US Supreme Court judge)
thinks that governments have the right to regulate private
consensual sexual behavior? Why William Rehnquist (noted
conservative and Supreme Court justice) thinks that it may be OK
in certain cases for public schools to cram the majority's
religion down the throats of other kids?
The whole conservative bugaboo about "original intent" has been
for the most part in opposition to court decisions where
legislatures have tried to *tread on individual rights*, and the
courts stopped them. There it was "the "liberals" were defending
individual rights while the "conservatives" were rallying around
the battlecry of "let legislatures rule!"
Stewart
--------------------------------------------------------
I think that most people don't realize that Thomas Jefferson's:
And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon
the altar of god, eternal hostility against every
form of tyranny over the mind of man.
(Letter to Rush)
was specifically about religious tyranny.
Jefferson was intelligent enough to realize those who preach religious
tyranny aren't preaching religion but tyranny.
Think about "religion" under religious "leaders" such as John Sharpton
Knight.
g.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Brian" |
|
| Title: Re: The US Constitution - a question |
02 Jul 2003 07:07:11 PM |
|
|
Stan de SD wrote:
"Stewart Millen" <Stewart_Millen@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns93AC89599B749StewartMillenhotmail@130.133.1.4...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
"Stan de SD" <standesd@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:jwDMa.21863$C83.2076272@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net:
"toto" <scarecrow@wicked.witch> wrote in message
news:6ac4gv4g3n8440q1hhvtr9qcd9gdosehkd@4ax.com...
US Constitution is hopelessly outdated according to some
people I speak to from various other countries of the
world.
Yeah, the idea of limited government and individual rights
really pisses off liberals and totalitarian wanna-bes who
think they can run our lives better than we can.
And is "limited government and individual rights" the reason
why Clarence Thomas (noted conservative and Supreme Court
justice) thinks that beating prisoners is Constitutional?
Where does he state that? Cites?
He hasn't.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Stan de SD" |
|
| Title: Re: The US Constitution - a question |
02 Jul 2003 10:12:10 PM |
|
|
"Brian" <olinshooter@erols.com> wrote in message
news:3F0373AF.59F55A9D@erols.com...
Stan de SD wrote:
"Stewart Millen" <Stewart_Millen@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns93AC89599B749StewartMillenhotmail@130.133.1.4...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
"Stan de SD" <standesd@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:jwDMa.21863$C83.2076272@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net:
"toto" <scarecrow@wicked.witch> wrote in message
news:6ac4gv4g3n8440q1hhvtr9qcd9gdosehkd@4ax.com...
US Constitution is hopelessly outdated according to some
people I speak to from various other countries of the
world.
Yeah, the idea of limited government and individual rights
really pisses off liberals and totalitarian wanna-bes who
think they can run our lives better than we can.
And is "limited government and individual rights" the reason
why Clarence Thomas (noted conservative and Supreme Court
justice) thinks that beating prisoners is Constitutional?
Where does he state that? Cites?
He hasn't.
Figured that much...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Stewart Millen" |
|
| Title: Re: The US Constitution - a question |
11 Jul 2003 03:50:36 PM |
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
"Stan de SD" <standesd@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:eaNMa.75905$Io.7102098@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net:
"Brian" <olinshooter@erols.com> wrote in message
news:3F0373AF.59F55A9D@erols.com...
And is "limited government and individual rights" the
reason why Clarence Thomas (noted conservative and
Supreme Court justice) thinks that beating prisoners
is Constitutional?
Where does he state that? Cites?
He hasn't.
Figured that much...
He did. 1992, Hudson vs McMillian. You can read it here:
<http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&cour
t=US&vol=503&invol=1&pageno=8>
Thomas believes that the government must specifically
decree "cruel and unusual punishment", (as opposed to
merely faciliating it or allowing it to happen) for it
to be unconstitutional.
By that reasoning, there was no torture in Stalin's
Soviet Union, as no court ordered it. Ditto with
Hussein's Iraq.
Stewart
(Back from computer crash).
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 6.5.8ckt http://www.ipgpp.com/
iQCVAwUBPw8jEzSyh6XxoDgRAQFX7gQAiopz54gWaWJsInpDzEstLaWqiS6hmCtv
ELD3k5EfVUb0i11Hhe8cMEvJBVfq+TGa0DP0v4EOCAWWGXzdZaVA+XU9+qfDafuL
ImxDimEn7WHVgO3nNMrfz7E8zFm+hiTfA9VQZAG0DbNjN6j1V1+RmjuEtWnRdmwu
wirBhx2L130=
=sJdl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: The US Constitution - a question |
02 Jul 2003 11:39:45 AM |
|
|
In article <jwDMa.21863$C83.2076272@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net> "Stan de SD" <standesd@earthlink.net> writes:
<
<"toto" <scarecrow@wicked.witch> wrote in message
<news:6ac4gv4g3n8440q1hhvtr9qcd9gdosehkd@4ax.com...
<>
<> US Constitution is hopelessly outdated according to some people
<> I speak to from various other countries of the world.
<
<Yeah, the idea of limited government and individual rights really pisses off
<liberals and totalitarian wanna-bes who think they can run our lives better
<than we can.
<
<> There is some sentiment for this in the US as well. And there is
<> some sentiment that our present constitution is a problem mainly
<> because the powers that be have not really adhered to its original
<> intent and protections for citizens.
<
<Yes, but due to the pressure of people like you who think the US
<Constitution is "hopelesslly outdated"... :O(
I'm always fascinated by the school of thought which holds that a small
group of men living two centuries ago in what would these days be
described as a third-world country, and who met briefly -- and often rancorously
-- to outline a proposed form of governance should somehow dictate, verbatim,
the manner in everyone who lived after them would be allowed to live.
This mindset proposes that you -- and I -- are bound to live by something
that none of use either formulated nor signed; I can think of nothing more
authoritarian than that.
This diverse and often contentious group of men proposed an experiment;
we living today actually now have two centuries worth of data on the
successes -- and failures -- of that experimental protocol. No
scientist would ever adhere to the original protocol in the face
of flaws which had come to light in the course of the experiment, but
the "original intent" school of Constitutional interpretation proposes
that we do precisely that. As this is an uminaginably different
world than those original intenders lived in, this strikes me
as conservatism run amok.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "H. Reader" |
|
| Title: Re: The US Constitution - a question |
07 Jul 2003 11:49:26 PM |
|
|
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:bdv1sh$scc$1@oasis.ccit.arizona.edu...
In article <jwDMa.21863$C83.2076272@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
"Stan de SD" <standesd@earthlink.net> writes:
<
<"toto" <scarecrow@wicked.witch> wrote in message
<news:6ac4gv4g3n8440q1hhvtr9qcd9gdosehkd@4ax.com...
<>
<> US Constitution is hopelessly outdated according to some people
<> I speak to from various other countries of the world.
<
<Yeah, the idea of limited government and individual rights really pisses
off
<liberals and totalitarian wanna-bes who think they can run our lives
better
<than we can.
<
<> There is some sentiment for this in the US as well. And there is
<> some sentiment that our present constitution is a problem mainly
<> because the powers that be have not really adhered to its original
<> intent and protections for citizens.
<
<Yes, but due to the pressure of people like you who think the US
<Constitution is "hopelesslly outdated"... :O(
I'm always fascinated by the school of thought which holds that a small
group of men living two centuries ago in what would these days be
described as a third-world country,
Actually, the former colonies were really fairly prosperous.
and who met briefly -- and often rancorously
-- to outline a proposed form of governance should somehow dictate,
verbatim,
the manner in everyone who lived after them would be allowed to live.
This mindset proposes that you -- and I -- are bound to live by something
that none of use either formulated nor signed; I can think of nothing more
authoritarian than that.
You apparently are not only easily fascinated, but you also fail
to grasp that what was "formulated" amounted to the institutionalization
of power dispersed, of authority uncentralized, of an anti-authority,
especially compared to every other government in history before
the US Constitution and possibly since the US Constitution. Your
claim amounts to asserting that an institutional opposition to
totalitarianism
is totalitarian. Technically, you're correct. In practice, in reality,
you're just being silly.
This diverse and often contentious group of men proposed an experiment;
No, they created a governing document. And why slip in the
politically korrect adjective-for-just-about-any-damn-thing
"diverse?" How were they diverse? And given the current
sensibilities -- if that's the correct word -- of the politically
korrect, how could a group of white guys *be* diverse?
I mean, aren't all white guys just ... you know. white guys,
in the view of the multicultural touchy-feely poltically korrect
totalitarian collection of airheaded assholes who inhabit our colleges
and universities these days?
we living today actually now have two centuries worth of data on the
successes -- and failures -- of that experimental protocol. No
scientist would ever adhere to the original protocol in the face
of flaws which had come to light in the course of the experiment, but
the "original intent" school of Constitutional interpretation proposes
that we do precisely that.
Right. Because original intent recognizes some
fairly enlightened universal and apparently perpetual principles
rather than on political manipulations or passing fancies, though
the recent Supreme Court decision on Affirmative Action
certainly trashes original intent. Sandra Day O'Connor
and the four justices who support her view certainly put
enlightened principle and the rule of law back several
notches. Apparently the Equal Protection Clause of
the 14th Amendment is beyond their intellectual grasp.
As this is an uminaginably different
world than those original intenders lived in,
Actually, human motivations and actions
aren't much different from what they've
always been -- at any time in human history.
The world might look and feel and smell different,
but humans are pretty much motivated by the
same things for the same reasons.
this strikes me
as conservatism run amok.
You strike me as stretching your intellect and education
beyond their capacities.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Stewart Millen" |
|
| Title: Re: The US Constitution - a question |
11 Jul 2003 04:32:30 PM |
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
"H. Reader" <historyreader@ev1.net> wrote in
news:vgkjktsnfrq480@corp.supernews.com:
Right. Because original intent recognizes some
fairly enlightened universal and apparently perpetual
principles rather than on political manipulations or
passing fancies,
Whose "original intent"? Madison's? Jefferson's?
Hamilton's and Washington's? Because the contemporaries
started arguing over what that "original intent" was
before the ink was scarcely dry on the document.
And if they couldn't agree on what the one true
"original intent" was, then how can someone 200 +
years removed, like William Rehnquist, know?
Besides, I have a real problem with someone saying
that they know exactly how say, Madison or Jefferson
or Hamilton would say if they were plonked right down
in the 21st century.
Stewart
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 6.5.8ckt http://www.ipgpp.com/
iQCVAwUBPw8s5TSyh6XxoDgRAQH5egP8DMVKjV4KOSonYNog1+iky/9UFxRr3um3
wAQQyom/K7mG0WPOWwP9wD0U9Iyr8Ws99Eh9uvNE4La16FlaYtq597/DtqfylnYV
ztoSy2KKBZesx2V5pdS1iNUBseri2ldLIoUc00ujtQb7+I5ZHv8m/UuZjEaLaNV5
FcJvM+d+LT0=
=7sFE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "toto" |
|
| Title: Re: The US Constitution - a question |
08 Jul 2003 12:27:33 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 7 Jul 2003 23:49:26 -0500, "H. Reader" <historyreader@ev1.net>
wrote:
This diverse and often contentious group of men proposed an experiment;
No, they created a governing document. And why slip in the
politically korrect adjective-for-just-about-any-damn-thing
"diverse?" How were they diverse? And given the current
sensibilities -- if that's the correct word -- of the politically
korrect, how could a group of white guys *be* diverse?
I mean, aren't all white guys just ... you know. white guys,
in the view of the multicultural touchy-feely poltically korrect
totalitarian collection of airheaded assholes who inhabit our colleges
and universities these days?
The new government can be seen as an experiment in dealing
with the problem of limited government--in designing a government
not too strong, but strong enough. It was, Jefferson and Adams
agreed in their correspondence, "the age of experiments in
government." Eighteenth-century Enlightenment thinking assumed
human reason and experience could succeed in solving major
human problems. Politicalblueprints could be devised from laws
as certain and universal as those governing the physical world.
A good government could be consciously and rationally devised.
Hence the American experiment.
Benjamin Franklin's final speech to the delegates of the
Constitutional Convention captures the spirit of experiment
and adventure and compromise though it never uses the
word experiment.
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/benfranklin1787.htm
Mr. President:
I confess that there are several parts of this constitution which I do
not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them;
for having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being
obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change
opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but
found to be otherwise. It is therefore that the older I grow, the more
apt I am to doubt my own judgment, and to pay more respect to the
judgment of others.
Most men indeed as well as most sects in Religion, think themselves in
possession of all truth, and that wherever others differ from them it
is so far error. Steele a Protestant in a Dedication tells the Pope,
that the only difference between our Churches in their opinions of the
certainty of their doctrines is, the Church of Rome is infallible and
the Church of England is never in the wrong. But though many private
persons think almost as highly of their own infallibility as of that
of their sect, few express it so naturally as a certain French lady,
who in a dispute with her sister, said "I don't know how it happens,
Sister but I meet with no body but myself, that's always in the right.
"Je ne trouve que moi qui aie toujours raison."
In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its
faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government
necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a
blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that
this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can
only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the
people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being
incapable of any other.
I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain, may be able to
make a better Constitution. For when you assemble a number of men to
have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with
those men, all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of
opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views. From such an
assembly can a perfect production be expected? It therefore astonishes
me, Sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it
does; and I think it will astonish our enemies, who are waiting with
confidence to hear that our councils are confounded like those of the
Builders of Babel; and that our States are on the point of separation,
only to meet hereafter for the purpose of cutting one another's
throats.
Thus I consent, Sir, to this Constitution because I expect no better,
and because I am not sure, that it is not the best. The opinions I
have had of its errors, I sacrifice to the public good. I have never
whispered a syllable of them abroad. Within these walls they were
born, and here they shall die. If every one of us in returning to our
Constituents were to report the objections he has had to it, and
endeavor to gain partisans in support of them, we might prevent its
being generally received, and thereby lose all the salutary effects
and great advantages resulting naturally in our favor among foreign
Nations as well as among ourselves, from our real or apparent
unanimity.
Much of the strength and efficiency of any Government in procuring and
securing happiness to the people, depends, on opinion, on the general
opinion of the goodness of the Government, as well as well as of the
wisdom and integrity of its Governors. I hope therefore that for our
own sakes as a part of the people, and for the sake of posterity, we
shall act heartily and unanimously in recommending this Constitution
(if approved by Congress and confirmed by the Conventions) wherever
our influence may extend, and turn our future thoughts and endeavors
to the means of having it well administered.
On the whole, Sir, I can not help expressing a wish that every member
of the Convention who may still have objections to it, would with me,
on this occasion doubt a little of his own infallibility, and to make
manifest our unanimity, put his name to this instrument.
--
Dorothy
There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..
Outer Limits
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Thompson" |
|
| Title: Re: The US Constitution - a question |
02 Jul 2003 02:34:20 PM |
|
|
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:bdv1sh$scc$1@oasis.ccit.arizona.edu...
In article <jwDMa.21863$C83.2076272@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
"Stan de SD" <standesd@earthlink.net> writes:
<
<"toto" <scarecrow@wicked.witch> wrote in message
<news:6ac4gv4g3n8440q1hhvtr9qcd9gdosehkd@4ax.com...
<>
<> US Constitution is hopelessly outdated according to some people
<> I speak to from various other countries of the world.
<
<Yeah, the idea of limited government and individual rights really pisses
off
<liberals and totalitarian wanna-bes who think they can run our lives
better
<than we can.
<
<> There is some sentiment for this in the US as well. And there is
<> some sentiment that our present constitution is a problem mainly
<> because the powers that be have not really adhered to its original
<> intent and protections for citizens.
<
<Yes, but due to the pressure of people like you who think the US
<Constitution is "hopelesslly outdated"... :O(
I'm always fascinated by the school of thought which holds that a small
group of men living two centuries ago in what would these days be
described as a third-world country, and who met briefly -- and often
rancorously
-- to outline a proposed form of governance should somehow dictate,
verbatim,
the manner in everyone who lived after them would be allowed to live.
Consider that this mindset is very similar to the people that believe the
bible is literal and should be followed precisely and that both are pretty
much the exact same people with the exact same cultural, political, and
religious leaders. It used to baffle me as to why creationists would try to
use Darwin's early writings to attack evolution until I realized that they
believed Darwin and his book have to be taken literally the same way they
took Jesus and the Bible literally. They believe that the bible is literal
and since it's the base of their beliefs the base of government (the
constitution) and evolution (Darwin) have to be taken literally also. What
it does is show an appalling lack of mental agility on their part and
demonstrates how their adherence to dogmatic beliefs effects their ability
to think, act, and judge.
This mindset proposes that you -- and I -- are bound to live by something
that none of use either formulated nor signed; I can think of nothing more
authoritarian than that.
This diverse and often contentious group of men proposed an experiment;
we living today actually now have two centuries worth of data on the
successes -- and failures -- of that experimental protocol. No
scientist would ever adhere to the original protocol in the face
of flaws which had come to light in the course of the experiment, but
the "original intent" school of Constitutional interpretation proposes
that we do precisely that. As this is an uminaginably different
world than those original intenders lived in, this strikes me
as conservatism run amok.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Stan de SD" |
|
| Title: Re: The US Constitution - a question |
02 Jul 2003 12:11:37 PM |
|
|
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:bdv1sh$scc$1@oasis.ccit.arizona.edu...
In article <jwDMa.21863$C83.2076272@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
"Stan de SD" <standesd@earthlink.net> writes:
<
<"toto" <scarecrow@wicked.witch> wrote in message
<news:6ac4gv4g3n8440q1hhvtr9qcd9gdosehkd@4ax.com...
<>
<> US Constitution is hopelessly outdated according to some people
<> I speak to from various other countries of the world.
<
<Yeah, the idea of limited government and individual rights really pisses
off
<liberals and totalitarian wanna-bes who think they can run our lives
better
<than we can.
<
<> There is some sentiment for this in the US as well. And there is
<> some sentiment that our present constitution is a problem mainly
<> because the powers that be have not really adhered to its original
<> intent and protections for citizens.
<
<Yes, but due to the pressure of people like you who think the US
<Constitution is "hopelesslly outdated"... :O(
I'm always fascinated by the school of thought which holds that a small
group of men living two centuries ago in what would these days be
described as a third-world country, and who met briefly -- and often
rancorously
-- to outline a proposed form of governance should somehow dictate,
verbatim,
the manner in everyone who lived after them would be allowed to live.
I'm equallyn fascinated that, in spite of the fact that this group of men
founded a nation that produced more economic prosperity and personal freedom
than has ever been experienced anywhere and at any time previously in
history, that a group of self-appointed do-gooders would be willing to throw
it away on something that something that sounded better at the moment...
:O|
This mindset proposes that you -- and I -- are bound to live by something
that none of use either formulated nor signed; I can think of nothing more
authoritarian than that.
Only in the minds of a confused lefty can limiting the size and scope of
government be considered "authoritarian"...
This diverse and often contentious group of men proposed an experiment;
we living today actually now have two centuries worth of data on the
successes -- and failures -- of that experimental protocol. No
scientist would ever adhere to the original protocol in the face
of flaws which had come to light in the course of the experiment, but
the "original intent" school of Constitutional interpretation proposes
that we do precisely that. As this is an uminaginably different
world than those original intenders lived in, this strikes me
as conservatism run amok.
So which of our rights do you propose to throw away, to satisfy your desire
for change?
.
|
|
|
| User: "H. Reader" |
|
| Title: Re: The US Constitution - a question |
08 Jul 2003 12:10:44 AM |
|
|
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:bdv51k$uk$1@oasis.ccit.arizona.edu...
In article <dnEMa.21919$C83.2090051@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
"Stan de SD" <standesd@earthlink.net> writes:
<
<"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
<news:bdv1sh$scc$1@oasis.ccit.arizona.edu...
<> In article <jwDMa.21863$C83.2076272@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
<"Stan de SD" <standesd@earthlink.net> writes:
<> <
<> <"toto" <scarecrow@wicked.witch> wrote in message
<> <news:6ac4gv4g3n8440q1hhvtr9qcd9gdosehkd@4ax.com...
<> <>
<> <> US Constitution is hopelessly outdated according to some people
<> <> I speak to from various other countries of the world.
<> <
<> <Yeah, the idea of limited government and individual rights really
pisses
<off
<> <liberals and totalitarian wanna-bes who think they can run our lives
<better
<> <than we can.
<> <
<> <> There is some sentiment for this in the US as well. And there is
<> <> some sentiment that our present constitution is a problem mainly
<> <> because the powers that be have not really adhered to its original
<> <> intent and protections for citizens.
<> <
<> <Yes, but due to the pressure of people like you who think the US
<> <Constitution is "hopelesslly outdated"... :O(
<>
<> I'm always fascinated by the school of thought which holds that a small
<> group of men living two centuries ago in what would these days be
<> described as a third-world country, and who met briefly -- and often
<rancorously
<> -- to outline a proposed form of governance should somehow dictate,
<verbatim,
<> the manner in everyone who lived after them would be allowed to live.
<
<I'm equallyn fascinated that, in spite of the fact that this group of men
<founded a nation that produced more economic prosperity and personal
freedom
<than has ever been experienced anywhere and at any time previously in
<history, that a group of self-appointed do-gooders would be willing to
throw
<it away on something that something that sounded better at the moment...
<:O|
I'm not at all sure that we have more personal freedoms than Canadians
or Kiwis or Icelanders -- or Costa Ricans or the Yanomamo for that
matter. I believe that's what you imply. Are you sure that we do?
The Bill of Rights pretty much acknowledges what the governments
of the people you mention don't acknowledge.
As to the matter of prosperity, what is your reason for claiming that
this is due to the Constitution? You don't think that vast and untouched
natural resources, isolation from endless European wars, and a
society which grew up during the scientific revolution might have
had a bit to do with this?
None of that seemed to help Mexico much, did it.
Or to say the same thing another way, as the average Russian is currently
in worse financial straits than he was under the Soviet regime;
does that prove the superiority of Communism?
As the thriving of liberty requires peace and security and social
order, and as Communism provided that in Russia much more
effectively than it's being provided by the current government,
then Communism is in a sense superior to the current government.
Russia remains a place with potential. The Russians have
merely exchanged one kind of oppression for another; that
is, the oppression of a totalitarian regime for the oppression
of crime and chaos.
I suspect the
relationship is secondary.
But then, you're apparently a bit of a simpleton, aren't you.
<> This mindset proposes that you -- and I -- are bound to live by
something
<> that none of use either formulated nor signed; I can think of nothing
more
<> authoritarian than that.
<
<Only in the minds of a confused lefty can limiting the size and scope of
<government be considered "authoritarian"...
I proposed that we should not limit the size and scope of government?
Where?
<
<> This diverse and often contentious group of men proposed an experiment;
<> we living today actually now have two centuries worth of data on the
<> successes -- and failures -- of that experimental protocol. No
<> scientist would ever adhere to the original protocol in the face
<> of flaws which had come to light in the course of the experiment, but
<> the "original intent" school of Constitutional interpretation proposes
<> that we do precisely that. As this is an uminaginably different
<> world than those original intenders lived in, this strikes me
<> as conservatism run amok.
<
<So which of our rights do you propose to throw away, to satisfy your
desire
<for change?
Individual rights? Few, if any. I'd get the government out of my
bedroom,
off my phone line, out of the marrying business, off the religion
circuit, and generally away from outstretched corporate hands.
Which of any of that is allowed by the Constitution. You
seem to be a friend of *original intent*.
In other areas? The first thing I'd do is stipulate that corporations
are not entitled to all the rights of individuals.
A corporation, by legal definition, *is* an individual.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: The US Constitution - a question |
08 Jul 2003 07:03:19 AM |
|
|
"H. Reader" <historyreader@ev1.net> wrote:
As to the matter of prosperity, what is your reason for claiming that
this is due to the Constitution? You don't think that vast and untouched
natural resources, isolation from endless European wars, and a
society which grew up during the scientific revolution might have
had a bit to do with this?
None of that seemed to help Mexico much, did it.
Mexico was NOT isolated from endless European wars; it was conquered
by Napoleon III at the approximate time of the Civil War.
Furthermore, it wasn't isolated from US, it was conquered by the USA
at a time when it was still young and fragile. (Mexican War), and had
large pieces chipped off of it by Americans when it was still young
(Texas, California, the Southwest, the Gadsden Purchase).
If the US had been conquered by Britain in the War of 1812, we might
not be so wealthy either. The SW would still be part of Mexico, the
NW part of Russia and Canada, Florida could be anyone's since Spain
would likely have sold it to someone else.
In other areas? The first thing I'd do is stipulate that corporations
are not entitled to all the rights of individuals.
A corporation, by legal definition, *is* an individual.
Therefore, we should change the definition. A corporation in most
other countries is NOT necessarily a legal "person", and has only the
rights explicitly given by the state.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "toto" |
|
| Title: Re: The US Constitution - a question |
08 Jul 2003 12:13:39 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 12:03:19 GMT, Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org>
wrote:
"H. Reader" <historyreader@ev1.net> wrote:
..
A corporation, by legal definition, *is* an individual.
Therefore, we should change the definition. A corporation in most
other countries is NOT necessarily a legal "person", and has only the
rights explicitly given by the state.
And corporations were not legal persons when the US began either.
For those who espouse a return to strict Constitutional principles, it
would seem to me logical to strip corporations of such a definition as
it was never envisioned by the founders of this country.
It fascinates me that these folks decry the courts *making* law, yet
this is a case where the courts most certainly made the decision
on the doctrine of corporation as person.
Case 1
Dartmouth College
- originally incorporated by King James, confirmed after
revolution by NH legislature
-notion that corporate status was grant of public/crown power
only for specific purposes and revocable for malfeasance.
-in a takeover bid, NH legislature passes law to up the
number of trustees of the college, and appoint the additional
ones like FDR's court-packing gambit
- Court rules that once 'created' the corporation belonged as
private property to its members, not the state since not a
'public enterprise'
-key here is distinction between artificial creation of the
state, and private control of that artificial creation after birth
case 2
Deveaux (Bank of United States vs Deveaux 9 US 5Cranch
61 1809)
-state of Georgia attempted to tax the Bank of the United
States, and argued that the Bank could not seek relief in
federal court since that venue reserved for disputes between
citizens of states, and the bank was not a citizen.
-Marshall drew upon old English precedent that had declared
corporations to be 'inhabitants' of the areas in which they
were incorporated
-but the Bank of US argued for bestowal of quasi-citizenship
for purposes of suit on the basis of the citizenship and
property rights of its members
- this concept is more in sync with the notion of the corporation
as private property, as op. to a creation of the state and was
used in subsequent decisions to establish the access of
corporations to federal courts
- however, full citizenship was not granted because of the desire to
preserve, with a nod to states' rights!, the power of states over
their corporations
Case 3
Santa Clara (this was the seminal case in this matter)
118 US 394 (1886)
-issues of property and the rights of the individual members of the
corporation pressured the court to consider the greater rights of the
corporation as aggregate-representative
-as corporations membership and directorate became more
disparate, and the unity of member/director citizenship gave
way to multi-state citizenship, the other old alternative, that of the
natural entity status of the corporation, was a way out
-the alternative would have been to strip the larger, more powerful
corporations of their access to federal courts, which was not likely
to happen
-thus, the corporation as its own entity
- in Santa Clara the Court jumped from entity to 'person,' because
it wanted to prevent a local CA county from taxing the railroad that
ran through the county.
-As a 'person' the corporation was entitled to the protection of the
Fourteenth Amendment provision of equal protection of the laws,
and due process in deprivation of property. The county tax
'discriminated' against the corporate person, and was thus invalid.
-this was not inevitable, especially since the Amendment had been
passed to protect recently freed black slaves, and the court had
earlier rejected the application of the Amendment beyond the
Negro race!
-But neither did the Court seem to want to allow this sort of
regulation of the railroads
-it was only a small step from the entity to the person
Case 4
PG&E
-transition from property rights of the person to the basic
political rights of the corporation
-free speech of the corporation for example, justified sometimes
by the corporation's status as a person, sometimes by the
aggregate rights of the membership to express its views.
-still that old dichotomy, but the right firmly established, and the
spending of money in campaigns even legitimized as the voice
of the voiceless corporation.
-PG&E decision attributed a psyche to the corporation, as the
way to avoid having to let a consumer group have access to the
utility's rate-payers.
-group of rate-payers wanted to stop PG&E's pro-nuclear power
brochures in the billing envelope.
-Because an earlier S.Ct. case (ConEd) had said that preventing the
brochures impinged on the corporate utility's freedom of speech, the
CA PUC decided not to prevent the pro-nuke brochures, but to require
the utility to include the rate-payer group's counter-brochure in the
billing envelope, at no increased cost to the utility, etc..
-The Court struck this down because freedom of speech must include
freedom NOT to speak, and inclusion of the counter-brochures might
COMPEL PG&E to feel it had to respond.
- this was just not fair and thus the corporation had a mind, a will
to be compelled, a psyche, etc.
None of these rights of corporations are even implied in the
constitution as far as I can see. It was the courts which created
the doctrine of corporate personhood from the beginning.
lojbab
--
Dorothy
There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..
Outer Limits
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bobby" |
|
| Title: Re: The US Constitution - a question |
02 Jul 2003 12:18:29 PM |
|
|
"Stan de SD" <standesd@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:dnEMa.21919$C83.2090051@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:bdv1sh$scc$1@oasis.ccit.arizona.edu...
In article <jwDMa.21863$C83.2076272@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
"Stan de SD" <standesd@earthlink.net> writes:
<
<"toto" <scarecrow@wicked.witch> wrote in message
<news:6ac4gv4g3n8440q1hhvtr9qcd9gdosehkd@4ax.com...
<>
<> US Constitution is hopelessly outdated according to some people
<> I speak to from various other countries of the world.
<
<Yeah, the idea of limited government and individual rights really
pisses
off
<liberals and totalitarian wanna-bes who think they can run our lives
better
<than we can.
<
<> There is some sentiment for this in the US as well. And there is
<> some sentiment that our present constitution is a problem mainly
<> because the powers that be have not really adhered to its original
<> intent and protections for citizens.
<
<Yes, but due to the pressure of people like you who think the US
<Constitution is "hopelesslly outdated"... :O(
I'm always fascinated by the school of thought which holds that a small
group of men living two centuries ago in what would these days be
described as a third-world country, and who met briefly -- and often
rancorously
-- to outline a proposed form of governance should somehow dictate,
verbatim,
the manner in everyone who lived after them would be allowed to live.
I'm equallyn fascinated that, in spite of the fact that this group of men
founded a nation that produced more economic prosperity and personal
freedom
than has ever been experienced anywhere and at any time previously in
history, that a group of self-appointed do-gooders would be willing to
throw
it away on something that something that sounded better at the moment...
:O|
More freedom, in the sense you cant drink until 21 unlike France where you
can at 14.
Perhaps the freedom to use substances you feel you are responsible enough to
use like you can in the Netherlands?
Perhaps the freedom to marry someone of the same sex like you can in a lot
of countries.
Maybe the freedom to speak out against the state without being arrested by
secret police?
This mindset proposes that you -- and I -- are bound to live by
something
that none of use either formulated nor signed; I can think of nothing
more
authoritarian than that.
Only in the minds of a confused lefty can limiting the size and scope of
government be considered "authoritarian"...
This diverse and often contentious group of men proposed an experiment;
we living today actually now have two centuries worth of data on the
successes -- and failures -- of that experimental protocol. No
scientist would ever adhere to the original protocol in the face
of flaws which had come to light in the course of the experiment, but
the "original intent" school of Constitutional interpretation proposes
that we do precisely that. As this is an uminaginably different
world than those original intenders lived in, this strikes me
as conservatism run amok.
So which of our rights do you propose to throw away, to satisfy your
desire
for change?
How about the most basic human right, the right to life which America and a
bunch of third world dictatorships dont respect with their continued use of
capital punishment.
Seems to me you are the last person we should be listening to about rights
and freedoms, hypocrite!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bobby" |
|
| Title: Re: The US Constitution - a question |
03 Jul 2003 09:40:01 AM |
|
|
"Stan de SD" <standesd@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:5zEMa.21931$C83.2090856@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
"Bobby" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:bdv452$lra$1@newsreaderg1.core.theplanet.net...
"Stan de SD" <standesd@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:dnEMa.21919$C83.2090051@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:bdv1sh$scc$1@oasis.ccit.arizona.edu...
In article
<jwDMa.21863$C83.2076272@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
"Stan de SD" <standesd@earthlink.net> writes:
<
<"toto" <scarecrow@wicked.witch> wrote in message
<news:6ac4gv4g3n8440q1hhvtr9qcd9gdosehkd@4ax.com...
<>
<> US Constitution is hopelessly outdated according to some people
<> I speak to from various other countries of the world.
<
<Yeah, the idea of limited government and individual rights really
pisses
off
<liberals and totalitarian wanna-bes who think they can run our
lives
better
<than we can.
<
<> There is some sentiment for this in the US as well. And there is
<> some sentiment that our present constitution is a problem mainly
<> because the powers that be have not really adhered to its
original
<> intent and protections for citizens.
<
<Yes, but due to the pressure of people like you who think the US
<Constitution is "hopelesslly outdated"... :O(
I'm always fascinated by the school of thought which holds that a
small
group of men living two centuries ago in what would these days be
described as a third-world country, and who met briefly -- and often
rancorously
-- to outline a proposed form of governance should somehow dictate,
verbatim,
the manner in everyone who lived after them would be allowed to
live.
I'm equallyn fascinated that, in spite of the fact that this group of
men
founded a nation that produced more economic prosperity and personal
freedom
than has ever been experienced anywhere and at any time previously in
history, that a group of self-appointed do-gooders would be willing to
throw
it away on something that something that sounded better at the
moment...
:O|
More freedom, in the sense you cant drink until 21 unlike France where
you
can at 14.
Perhaps the freedom to use substances you feel you are responsible
enough
to
use like you can in the Netherlands?
While I disagree with our restrictive laws in the area of substance use,
if
that's the most important concern of yours, it shows where your priorities
lie.
Perhaps the freedom to marry someone of the same sex like you can in a
lot
of countries.
"Same-sex marriage" is an oxymoron.
Maybe the freedom to speak out against the state without being arrested
by
secret police?
Where does that occur in the US, other than in your imagination?
This mindset proposes that you -- and I -- are bound to live by
something
that none of use either formulated nor signed; I can think of
nothing
more
authoritarian than that.
Only in the minds of a confused lefty can limiting the size and scope
of
government be considered "authoritarian"...
This diverse and often contentious group of men proposed an
experiment;
we living today actually now have two centuries worth of data on the
successes -- and failures -- of that experimental protocol. No
scientist would ever adhere to the original protocol in the face
of flaws which had come to light in the course of the experiment,
but
the "original intent" school of Constitutional interpretation
proposes
that we do precisely that. As this is an uminaginably different
world than those original intenders lived in, this strikes me
as conservatism run amok.
So which of our rights do you propose to throw away, to satisfy your
desire
for change?
How about the most basic human right, the right to life which America
and
a
bunch of third world dictatorships dont respect with their continued use
of
capital punishment.
Given that those subject to capital punishment are convicted murderers,
why
should I be concerned about the "right to life" of individuals who don't
share that same concern about others?
So you are defending the restriction of the most basic human right? You just
made my point for me.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Stewart Millen" |
|
| Title: Re: The US Constitution - a question |
02 Jul 2003 12:33:04 PM |
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
"Stan de SD" <standesd@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:5zEMa.21931$C83.2090856@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net:
Given that those subject to capital punishment are
convicted murderers, why should I be concerned about the
"right to life" of individuals who don't share that same
concern about others?
Because in an uncomfortably high number of cases it's been
demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that the executed was in
fact innocent? Because the ability to take life is the ultimate
ego trip of the state, oh-defender-of-individualism-vs-state-
tyranny?
And that's only for starters.
Stewart
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 6.5.8ckt http://www.ipgpp.com/
iQCVAwUBPwMXSzSyh6XxoDgRAQEgDgP8Cjr30hqIKbmeBOBnV9W6CZC9E/GD5/ei
kYyHtL2i9qjgYJ6YLQhV5CU7cHgSHzClpiWMCzstCz86TjAFl8rAqojQAEi1fLMQ
5LGEEWk122Pa12xVCTcvfzdPwk8+Ugv8qKnktfoYPgtvaN+KzaxEazvh/kf1tE6/
eKOY7BkGruM=
=nv53
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hugo S. Cunningham" |
|
| Title: Re: The US Constitution - a question |
09 Jul 2003 05:31:58 PM |
|
|
On 2 Jul 2003 17:33:04 GMT, Stewart Millen
<Stewart_Millen@hotmail.com> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
"Stan de SD" <standesd@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:5zEMa.21931$C83.2090856@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net:
Given that those subject to capital punishment are
convicted murderers, why should I be concerned about the
"right to life" of individuals who don't share that same
concern about others?
Because in an uncomfortably high number of cases it's been
demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that the executed was in
fact innocent?
Fiction. You do cite an execution (in Virginia, not North Carolina)
where the State is blocking a retest, maybe for illicit reasons, but
even if so, one case out of several hundred is hardly an
"uncomfortably high number."
There are murder cases where evidence of the defendant's guilt is
overwhelmingly persuasive to any rational person. (Slightly less
persuasive ones should, however, be commuted to life imprisonment.)
Because the ability to take life is the ultimate
ego trip of the state, oh-defender-of-individualism-vs-state-
tyranny?
A state by definition is a monopoly of force, meaning, in the final
analysis, "the ability to take life." What separates free states from
unfree states is what that monopoly of force is used for -- to protect
ordinary honest citizens from violence and fraud? or to rob and
murder various "classes" and ethnic groups?
Are you advocating the disbandment of armies and the disarmament
of police forces? (Western European countries, protected by the USA
for over fifty years, perhaps could get away with it). Armies and
policemen are much more likely to kill innocent people then judicial
systems that have had months, even years, to examine all the relevent
information in an individual case.
You elsewhere cite US drug prohibition, indeed a disgrace, but what
European state has a Constitutional protection against drug
prohibition?
--Hugo S. Cunningham
.
|
|
|
| User: "Stewart Millen" |
|
| Title: Re: The US Constitution - a question |
11 Jul 2003 05:01:37 PM |
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
hcunn1221@removethis.yahoo.com (Hugo S. Cunningham) wrote in
news:3f0c785c.22000704@news.surfbestisp.net:
On 2 Jul 2003 17:33:04 GMT, Stewart Millen
<Stewart_Millen@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Stan de SD" <standesd@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:5zEMa.21931$C83.2090856@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.ne
t:
Given that those subject to capital punishment are
convicted murderers, why should I be concerned about the
"right to life" of individuals who don't share that same
concern about others?
Because in an uncomfortably high number of cases it's been
demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that the executed was
in fact innocent?
Fiction. You do cite an execution (in Virginia, not North
Carolina) where the State is blocking a retest, maybe for
illicit reasons, but even if so, one case out of several
hundred is hardly an "uncomfortably high number."
Another poster cited *at least 3* out of 100 are now
known to have been wrongfully executed (could be higher) .
I guess if it's not your life, or that of a loved one,
it doesn't matter? Or to put it this way: what possible
deterrent does killing the wrong man (while letting the
guilty go free, correspondingly) have?
There are murder cases where evidence of the
defendant's guilt is
overwhelmingly persuasive to any rational person.
(Slightly less persuasive ones should, however, be commuted
to life imprisonment.)
Because the ability to take life is the ultimate
ego trip of the state,
oh-defender-of-individualism-vs-state- tyranny?
A state by definition is a monopoly of force, meaning, in
the final analysis, "the ability to take life." What
separates free states from unfree states is what that
monopoly of force is used for -- to protect ordinary honest
citizens from violence and fraud? or to rob and murder
various "classes" and ethnic groups?
But that force does not need to involve killing someone
else, especially when the decision can be made rationally
and deliberately. Besides, I was exposing the hypocrisy
of those who say that they are "pro-rights" and "anti-
government" and yet (sometimes enthusiastically) are willing
to grant the government the power to execute, which is
granting the government the ultimate power.
Are you advocating the disbandment of armies and the
disarmament
of police forces? (Western European countries, protected
by the USA for over fifty years, perhaps could get away
with it). Armies and policemen are much more likely to
kill innocent people then judicial systems that have had
months, even years, to examine all the relevent information
in an individual case.
Save that for them, killing is almost an inevitable part
of doing their jobs. Capital punishment, OTH, is not
inevitable or necessary by any means. Nearly every
other industrialized country has banned it, and nearly
all of them have lower homicide rates than the US.
Stewart
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 6.5.8ckt http://www.ipgpp.com/
iQCVAwUBPw8zuzSyh6XxoDgRAQGaVwP8DKA2/2jhnI9xr1JFUXLL42rM3ieTylsr
W4w5anIJYUTBiehx6oMEdacvdalkd9TfXR4hIRalJa2NrYdoCyFcaZWSX6kEMzZ3
77BeF0Mhx9fBnYn5/Prp1pYwf+XosCRkA4otkZiNIWn0soOBurDFRuIYVCzzKCsj
E5snbIKFoGs=
=nH2H
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hugo S. Cunningham" |
|
| Title: Re: The US Constitution - a question |
12 Jul 2003 10:13:57 PM |
|
|
On 11 Jul 2003 22:01:37 GMT, Stewart Millen
<Stewart_Millen@hotmail.com> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
hcunn1221@removethis.yahoo.com (Hugo S. Cunningham) wrote in
news:3f0c785c.22000704@news.surfbestisp.net:
On 2 Jul 2003 17:33:04 GMT, Stewart Millen
<Stewart_Millen@hotmail.com> wrote:
... In an uncomfortably high number of cases it's been
demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that the executed was
in fact innocent.
Fiction. You do cite an execution (in Virginia, not North
Carolina) where the State is blocking a retest, maybe for
illicit reasons, but even if so, one case out of several
hundred is hardly an "uncomfortably high number."
Another poster cited *at least 3* out of 100 are now
known to have been wrongfully executed (could be higher) .
These claims (at least for cases since the resumption of executions in
1976) tend to disintegrate under closer examination (eg the O'Dell
case that was a cause celebre in Italy a few years ago). Did this
poster provide specific names and States?
I guess if it's not your life, or that of a loved one,
it doesn't matter? Or to put it this way: what possible
deterrent does killing the wrong man (while letting the
guilty go free, correspondingly) have?
None, of course, but in the overwhelming number of cases where the one
executed was guilty as charged, execution does serve various purposes.
The threat of execution has been useful in getting guilty pleas in
many cases, avoiding trials and the risk that a murderer will get out
early and have a chance to repeat his crime.
Executed murderers don't kill people while engaging in prison riots or
escaping from prison.
[...]
A state by definition is a monopoly of force, meaning, in
the final analysis, "the ability to take life." What
separates free states from unfree states is what that
monopoly of force is used for -- to protect ordinary honest
citizens from violence and fraud? or to rob and murder
various "classes" and ethnic groups?
But that force does not need to involve killing someone
else, especially when the decision can be made rationally
and deliberately. Besides, I was exposing the hypocrisy
of those who say that they are "pro-rights" and "anti-
government" and yet (sometimes enthusiastically) are willing
to grant the government the power to execute, which is
granting the government the ultimate power.
They think in terms "contracts" and the need for a government to
enforce same. What you get out of society should reflect what you put
into it. Perform valuable services, and become wealthy in return.
Spread misery, and the death penalty is merely a fair return on your
actions.
Are you advocating the disbandment of armies and the
disarmament
of police forces? (Western European countries, protected
by the USA for over fifty years, perhaps could get away
with it). Armies and policemen are much more likely to
kill innocent people then judicial systems that have had
months, even years, to examine all the relevent information
in an individual case.
Save that for them, killing is almost an inevitable part
of doing their jobs. Capital punishment, OTH, is not
inevitable or necessary by any means. Nearly every
other industrialized country has banned it, and nearly
all of them have lower homicide rates than the US.
The abolition of capital punishment is a favored cause of
Euro-socialists and those who want money from them. It has not found
traction among the democracies of East Asia.
In particular, Japan, the most robust democracy of East Asia, executes
murderers at a rate comparable to the USA. (Fewer murders --> fewer
executions)
--Hugo S. Cunningham
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "gaffo" |
|
| Title: Re: The US Constitution - a question |
03 Jul 2003 07:25:24 PM |
|
|
Stan de SD wrote:
"Stewart Millen" <Stewart_Millen@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns93AC89D96BDFFStewartMillenhotmail@130.133.1.4...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
"Stan de SD" <standesd@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:5zEMa.21931$C83.2090856@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net:
Given that those subject to capital punishment are
convicted murderers, why should I be concerned about the
"right to life" of individuals who don't share that same
concern about others?
Because in an uncomfortably high number of cases it's been
demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that the executed was in
fact innocent?
It was? Was it truly demonstrated that these people were "innocent", or was
there some procedural technicality along the way?
He is wrong.............there is noe man who was executed in North
Carolina around 5-yrs ago. There is DNA evidence in the State's
forensics lab. The lawyes for the defence have been going to court to
unseal the evidence. North Carolina refuses!!!
Why? because they know they killed an innocent man, and will not
exonerate him by releasing the evidence. He family is still fighting the
State to do the honourable thing. the State is more concerned about
coverup and looking bad than justice. In fact the State TRIED to destroy
the DNA evidence, but a court ruling denied them that right.
So Bubba...............the State will never voluntarily show evidence
that they killed an innocent man (NEVER!)..............the State will
ahve to be dragged kicking and screaming to the table of honour and justice.
Go ahead... try to make your case. Cites, please. And don't EVEN bring up
Mumia, unless you want to be exposed for another gullible liberal fool...
There are many cases of men on death row currently which have had DNA
evidence showning them innocent of the crime they were accused of.
Most are released (usually pardoned by the Govenor)........the courts
NEVER apologize....nor do they admit incompetence or corruption of the
trial. Since the accused is still alive they usually muster the courage
to release the suspect. If he was killed, again the courts would never
exonorate the innocent victim accused and killed by the State.
Some however are not released even after DNA shows they are inocent.
Legal technicalities are the reasons given - real reason is cowerdice of
the State looking like they fucked up a trial. (which happens more then
you know Bubba).
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "gaffo" |
|
| Title: Re: The US Constitution - a question |
03 Jul 2003 07:11:34 PM |
|
|
Bobby wrote:
More freedom, in the sense you cant drink until 21 unlike France where you
can at 14.
Perhaps the freedom to use substances you feel you are responsible enough to
use like you can in the Netherlands?
Differing States have differing laws. I suggest you move to Oregon and
Alaska for this freedom.
Form a group. Petition your State to pass such laws.
Perhaps the freedom to marry someone of the same sex like you can in a lot
of countries.
Move to Vermont - if you want to marry a guy and you are a guy.
Again......you don't like the laws in your State? From an advacacy group
and do what Vermont did......pass a law for equity.
Maybe the freedom to speak out against the state without being arrested by
secret police?
Indeed. Last time I checked this right was affirmed on our Constittuion.
How about the most basic human right, the right to life which America and a
bunch of third world dictatorships dont respect with their continued use of
capital punishment.
Well........if you knew anything about the US courts andour
Cosntitution, you would know that in 1973 the Supreme Court ruled that
capital punishment violates the 8th Amendment. This ruling automatically
allied to the States as well.
If you knew history you would know that some states have not had capital
punishemnt in over 150 yrs. Wissconson's last execution was in 1865.
Michigan explicitly amended their Constitution to forbid capital
punishment in the 1830's!!!!!!!!!!!!! (the first State or Nation on the
planet to do such!).
See? If you knew some history you'd understand that the Courts rule upon
the constitutionality of matters. The 1973 ruling was reversed by the
same court 9 yrs later.
There is no "the State has the right to capital punishment" in the US
Constitution bubba.
This is left up to the States to decide upon. (and the federal
government)................until deemed unconstitution again. (which I
DO forsee in the next 20-yrs).
Seems to me you are the last person we should be listening to about rights
and freedoms, hypocrite!
Or you.............being so ignorant of history and the nature of our
system of laws.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: The US Constitution - a question |
03 Jul 2003 11:42:34 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 2 Jul 2003 12:24:17 -0500, Stan de SD wrote
(in message <5zEMa.21931$C83.2090856@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>):
Given that those subject to capital punishment are convicted murderers, why
should I be concerned about the "right to life" of individuals who don't
share that same concern about others?
How many "convicted murderers" have been set free because they were
absolutely cleared of the charges by using DNA?
How many "oops, we sorta executed the wrong guy" does it take to invalidate
capital punishment?
Think about those being convicted with "people" such as John Knight or Al
Sharpton or Gummy Mastic on the jury.
g
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "GENOMEMAN" |
|
| Title: Re: The US Constitution - a question |
02 Jul 2003 05:04:21 PM |
|
|
"Stan de SD" <standesd@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:dnEMa.21919$C83.2090051@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
I'm always fascinated by the school of thought which holds that a small
group of men living two centuries ago in what would these days be
described as a third-world country, and who met briefly -- and often
rancorously
-- to outline a proposed form of governance should somehow dictate,
verbatim,
the manner in everyone who lived after them would be allowed to live.
I'm equally fascinated that, in spite of the fact that this group of men
founded a nation that produced more economic prosperity and personal
freedom
than has ever been experienced anywhere and at any time previously in
history, that a group of self-appointed do-gooders would be willing to
throw
it away on something that something that sounded better at the moment...
:O|
Brilliant, just brilliant! :-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Stan de SD" |
|
| Title: Re: The US Constitution - a question |
03 Jul 2003 08:45:25 PM |
|
|
"GENOMEMAN" <genetically_engineered_bassist@DNAHelix.com> wrote in message
news:FFIMa.951$5h.365631@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
"Stan de SD" <standesd@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:dnEMa.21919$C83.2090051@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
I'm always fascinated by the school of thought which holds that a
small
group of men living two centuries ago in what would these days be
described as a third-world country, and who met briefly -- and often
rancorously
-- to outline a proposed form of governance should somehow dictate,
verbatim,
the manner in everyone who lived after them would be allowed to live.
I'm equally fascinated that, in spite of the fact that this group of men
founded a nation that produced more economic prosperity and
personal freedom than has ever been experienced anywhere and
at any time previously in history, that a group of self-appointed
do-gooders would be willing to throw it away on something that
sounded better at the moment... :O|
Brilliant, just brilliant! :-)
Thanks, but I have to admit that Thomas Sowell put it more succinctly, when
he mentioned that the history of liberalism in America has been the quest to
replace what worked with what sounded good at the time... :Oo
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dwain Goforth" |
|
| Title: Re: The US Constitution - a question |
02 Jul 2003 02:03:02 PM |
|
|
"We are free today substantially, but the day will come when our Republic
will be an impossibility. It will be an impossibility because wealth
will be concentrated in the hands of a few. A Republic cannot stand upon
bayonets, and when the day comes, when the wealth of the nation will be
in the hands of a few, then we must rely upon the wisdom of the best
elements in the country to readjust the laws of the nation to the changed
conditions." - James Madison
"We may consider each generation as a distinct nation, with a right, by
the will of its majority, to bind themselves, but none to bind the
succeeding generation, more than the inhabitants of another country." -
Thomas Jefferson
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Stewart Millen" |
|
| Title: Re: The US Constitution - a question |
02 Jul 2003 01:02:53 PM |
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
"Stan de SD" <standesd@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:dnEMa.21919$C83.2090051@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net:
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in
message news:bdv1sh$scc$1@oasis.ccit.arizona.edu...
I'm always fascinated by the school of thought which holds
that a small group of men living two centuries ago in what
would these days be described as a third-world country,
and who met briefly -- and often rancorously -- to outline a
proposed form of governance should somehow dictate,
verbatim, >> the manner in everyone who lived after them
would be allowed to live.
I'm equallyn fascinated that, in spite of the fact that
this group of men founded a nation that produced more
economic prosperity and personal freedom>
than has ever been experienced anywhere and at any time
previously in history, that a group of self-appointed
do-gooders would be willing to throw it away on something
that something that | | | |
