|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6~7~8 | ||||||||||
MagiClyde Special user Columbus, Ohio 871 Posts |
Quote:
being necessary to the security of a free state An interesting interpretation of this particular portion could be read to say "in order to keep secure a state of freedom" Quote:
If that was the original intention of <any> of the Founding Fathers, it certainly got thrown out the window once they actually got into power. Just take a look at Shay's Rebellion or the Whiskey Rebellion. On the other hand, look at the war of 1812, when Britian actually tried to take back "its colonies". Once we give up a right for security's sake, we end up losing both. While I may not agree with what Rosie O'Donnell has to say, I believe in her right to say it, no matter how crazy it may sound. As long as she doesn't yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater!
Magic! The quicker picker-upper!
|
|||||||||
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts |
Quote:
On 2007-05-05 22:36, clynim wrote: The "Once we give up a right for security's sake..." thing is a cheap cliche that doesn't really hold up to scrutiny. In fact, the "FIRE in a crowded theater" example is a perfect illustration. For the security of the public safety of avoiding riots, we accept a limitation on free speech. I suspect that it's a tiny, tiny percentage of the strictest of constructionists who believe that we've "lost" free speech because a concession was made for the sake of security. Constitutional rights are pretty much always evaluated in a balancing test between the individual's liberty and the government's interest in passing the law that would restrict it; the balance between the two fluctuates time to time. It violates neither the spirit nor the letter of the Constitution to consider changing technology or society in making the appropriate determinations. I suspect that not many of the founding fathers would be ok with private citizens, even if they were militia members, owning their own nuclear bombs. When airport security measure were stepped up post-911, I didn't feel as a result that I was either less free or less secure.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley. "...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us." |
|||||||||
kregg Inner circle 1950 Posts |
"I suspect that not many of the founding fathers would be ok with private citizens, even if they were militia members, owning their own nuclear bombs."
This goes back to your jurisprudence argument. As socially responsible members of the Republic, from time to time, we allow our representatives to make concessions at our behest when we feel that a threat outweighs our security. Unfortunately, in the case of the sixteenth amendment , we were bitten by our naive trust in our elected officials. What's worse, it's been accepted by most people, not to mention, a slew of pusillanimous members of Congress for nearly a century.
POOF!
|
|||||||||
Josh the Superfluous Inner circle The man of 1881 Posts |
I think the founding fathers would have written an entirely different document had they known Rosie O'donnell. There probably would have been several provisions regarding obnoxious speech.
What do you want in a site? "Honesty, integrity and decency." -Mike Doogan
"I hate it, I hate my ironic lovechild. I didn't even have anything to do with it" Josh #2 |
|||||||||
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21219 Posts |
Quote:
On 2007-05-05 22:36, clynim wrote: I always find the 'An interesting interpretation of this particular portion could be read to say' idea very amusing. If most people who are for gun control would read the Second Ammendment as they do the others, we would be required to carry a gun. I am not lashing out at you here, I am simply mentioning the phrase is funny is all.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
I guess folks have not read 2000ad and read the first appearance of Judge Death.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
DStachowiak Inner circle Baltimore, MD 2158 Posts |
What I always find amusing is the attempt to make one portion of the Constitution more important than another, as though one article or amendment could trump another.
The problem occurs when people try to use the parts they agree with to justify their position and make everyone else give them their way, and treat the rest of the Constitution as some inconvenient political document. It's a package folks. All parts of the Constitution have equal weight. "What a field day for the Heat; A thousand people in the street. Singin' songs, and carryin' signs; Mostly say 'Hooray for our side' " -Buffalo Springfield
Woke up.
Fell out of bed. Dragged a comb across m' head. |
|||||||||
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21219 Posts |
All of them that I believe in have equal weight LOL!
Isn't that my right?
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts |
Quote:
On 2007-05-06 15:44, DStachowiak wrote: Technically, not exactly true. The Bill of Rights restricts Congress; it is only through the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment that those protections also extend to state government, and not all of them do. In the tortured legal history, the debate has centered on such things as whether a given right is "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty" (Palko v. Connecticut) and (or, really) "fundamental to the American scheme of justice" (Duncan v. Louisiana; a shift from Palko). While it's true that currently MOST of the Bill of Rights amendments have been applied to the states, it's not the case that all of them have...in other words, not all rights are created equal. For instance, while the First Amendment, in its entirety, is applicable to state and local governments, the 5th Amendment's guarantee of requiring an indictment for serious crimes is NOT. You can be tried in California, where I live, with no grand jury indictment, contrary to the text of the 5th Amendment ("No person shall be held to answer for a Capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury...") Similarly, the seventh Amendment provides for jury trials in civil cases in excess of a given dollar amount. Won't help you in state court. That provision is not as important or valuable (or "fundamental") a right as, for instance, the "Cruel and Unusual" provision of the 8th Amendment, which WILL protect you in state court, too.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley. "...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us." |
|||||||||
Josh Riel Inner circle of hell 1995 Posts |
If we were to view this from a technical standpoint, we no longer have the right to keep and bear arms, to freedom of speech, to due process of law, etc.
O.K. whether you agree with the laws or not is irrelevant. The Patriot (As the most recent, not the only one) act has removed: The 1st Amendment "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." 3rd Amendment "No soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner; nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law." 4th Amendment "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized." 5th Amendment "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous, crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service, in time of war, or public danger; nor shall any person be subject, for the same offense, to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled, in any criminal case, to be a witness against himself; nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." 6th Amendment "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law; and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense." Of course no one really knows what has happened with the: 8th Amendment "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted." Since the others are rendered moot, we have no way of knowing. One of course, hopes for the best. And the 2nd Amendment "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Has been under siege for a long time, and has been compromised long ago. I am a Donkey. And I know for a fact that my party is as responsible for each of these criminal, unconstitutional acts as any elephant. I also know that the responsibility, the culpability really rests on yours and my shoulders. The founding fathers were just getting out from under the oppressive government that we can't seem to wait to become owned by. That is why the 2nd amendment was worded just so. They understood what governments are capable of. Although we can watch CNN (Or Fox, if you like that sort of thing) and see that the rest of the world has those governments, and dislikes them. Still we fall for the garbage and will very soon get to live with the regret of our loss. Call it a Democracy, call it a Republic, it will soon be only in the history books, along with many other books that are banned. God Bless the America that [b]should[/b[ be! And may our children forgive us for the America that is.
Magic is doing improbable things with odd items that, under normal circumstances, would be unnessecary and quite often undesirable.
|
|||||||||
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts |
Without getting into a long response, I disagree with the above. Constitutional rights have, for more than 200 years, been relative, not absolute, and shifts in the framework of how the individual balancing tests are conducted don't mean that we've "lost" any of them. The nature of the evaluations has perpetually shifted, from case to case, and from court to court. The notion that we've "lost" free speech, given the vigorousness with which the president (who is usually "credited" with taking it away) is attacked without reprisal by celebrities, politicians, media members, and just about anyone else who has as a platform not only the internet, but also the major media channels of the country, whether we're talking about TV, radio, or newspapers. It makes me want to get back in touch with a friend I've lost touch with who got out of Ceausescu's Romania in the 80's. I'm sure hearing people blast the president on public airwaves while simultaneously saying things like we have no freedom of speech any more would REALLY crack him up.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley. "...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us." |
|||||||||
gaddy Inner circle Agent of Chaos 3526 Posts |
Quote:
On 2007-04-28 07:38, amosmc wrote: It isn't newsworthy, not by a longshot, but it DOES give the knee-jerk reactionaries on both sides of the culture war yet another topic to turn into a heated political debate. Note some of the other dignitaries that have been named over the course of this friendly discussion. The real irony is that "they" never do this sort of thing on "their" own blogsites, becuse if they did, these 150+ post "debates" would be 150 posts worth of people saying: "me too" over and over again ad infinatum...
*due to the editorial policies here, words on this site attributed to me cannot necessarily be held to be my own.*
|
|||||||||
gaddy Inner circle Agent of Chaos 3526 Posts |
Quote:
On 2007-05-06 15:30, Jonathan Townsend wrote: >rushes out to find his back issues!<
*due to the editorial policies here, words on this site attributed to me cannot necessarily be held to be my own.*
|
|||||||||
DStachowiak Inner circle Baltimore, MD 2158 Posts |
Quote:
On 2007-05-06 20:56, LobowolfXXX wrote: Lobowolf, I do understand your point, and I realize that different parts of the Constitution address different specific issues and have broader or narrower focii, and therefore have greater or lesser IMPACT. In part this is because the Constitution was a document which was designed to address the needs of an 18th century agrarian society while providing flexibility for the future. This, of course, makes certain parts of the Constitution (I refer to the entire document, not just the Bill of Rights or the later amendments) more relevent in specific cases than others. I am merely suggesting that attempts to say that, for instance, The first amendment is "more important" than, say, the establishment clause, or the prohibition against unreasonable search and siezure, are wrongheaded, and usually amount to one group trying to use the Constitution to force some unpalateable notion down the throats of another group.
Woke up.
Fell out of bed. Dragged a comb across m' head. |
|||||||||
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21219 Posts |
I guess the real point is that Rosie herself has the right to be as stupid as she wishes. As long as it does not violate the law or infrince on the rights of others.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts |
Quote:
On 2007-05-07 07:39, DStachowiak wrote: I definitely agree with your big picture point. Essentially, people invoke the tremendous importance of the Constitution when it's a question about their particular favorite right, then blithely ignore it when it doesn't suit them. Which shouldn't be any surprise...by and large, when it comes to arguing big issues, people are fairly disingenuous and lacking in objectivity.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley. "...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us." |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Rosie Canned... (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6~7~8 |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.07 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < |