Text 9273, 272 rader
Skriven 2006-10-12 02:41:48 av gabiks@comcast.net
Ärende: Re: My Presidential Pick for 2006
=========================================
From: gabiks@comcast.net

Vorlonagent wrote:
> My newreader had already disposed of your original post.  So I'm lazy.
> Rather than do what I need to do to resurrect it, I'm just starting a new
> thread with the same name.
>

no problem, except you cut out all the funny bits.

> Vorlonagent wrote:
>
> > You've confused me here a bit. Is the constitution not a legal
> > document?
>
> Of course it is.  It is in fact THE legal document.  It is the foundation of
> the USA.  What did I say that might have given you a different impression?
>

I was confused by "marriage also has no constitutional basis, *only a
legal* one." Followed by "there is no cause for the judiciary to
intervene here and create (legislate) a right where *none legally*
exists."    Is there a federal vs state thing going on here?

>
> The Declaration of Independence is not a part of the Constitution.  Whatever
> reverence I may have for it, this simple fact remains.  You cannot quote to
> me any part of it and expect it to carry the force of law, nor should the
> Supreme Court invoke it as valid legal precedent.  If you want a
> *Constitutional* right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", you
> need to amend the Constitution to add it, because it's not there now.  You
> can't just wake up one day and declare some right is enshrined in the
> Constitution, because that's not how the law AS DEFINED BY THE CONSTITUTION
> works.
>

I disagree, it *is* there now.  The declaration of independence is a
part of the constitution because it is the reason the constitution
exists at all.   the framers used the DOI to make plain the purpose
of/for the federal government.    Firstly, they distanced themselves
from king and court by outlining the principles of a new form of
government, for the people by the people.  This was huge.  secondly, we
are a republic by necessity; most of the original states had ratified
constitutions of their own and were very pleased with themselves.  The
need for any federal oversight was a hard sell.   The bill of rights
was added to the articles to further clarify the *intent* of the
constitution and the federal government it supported.   You can't
have one without the other.

>
> Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has done exactly this.
>
>
>
> The Supreme Court made, IMHO, a very serous legal mistake when it used a
> current trend in (IIRC) Europen law to strike down a state law allowing the
> death penalty to be applied to juveniles.  Again, the merits of the law
> aren't the issue here.  What's at issue is that a constitutional precedent
> was set which had no basis in the Constitution itself.  The majority
> Justices in effect amended the constitution by judicial decree.
>
> This is not a power that the Framers ever intended to give them.  By right
> of Marbury vs Madison, the Court made itself the final arbiter of the
> constitution.  With this new ruling, the Court has said the Constitution
> says whatever a majority of Justices want it to say.  And there's no check
> on this ability, except the same Court changing its mind sometime in the
> future.  They can add any precedent to the Constitution they see fit.
> Congress can impeach a justice for bad behaviour.  The Prez chooses who goes
> to the bench, but that's it.  There's nothing either branch of govenment can
> do to challenge a ruling handed down by well-behaving Justices on the Court.
>

Well, yes, the justices are the final arbitrators of the constitution.
It's their job to uphold both the spirit *and* the letter of the law.
 Without getting into the merits of applying the death penalty to
juveniles, equal treatment under the law (juveniles=adults) does not
necessarily equal fair treatment under the law.   And I think the
framers understood this. (That's why trial by jury was so important
to them.)  I get what your saying, a legal precedent has been set at
the federal level countering a state court judgment.  I get that, I do.
  Am I as worried about it as you are?  Not yet, but then I've always
been a bit of a late bloomer.  :^)

>
> Unless I misread the Framers, they intended the Judicary to restrain the
> Executive and Legislative branches.  I don't think they ever considered the
> possibility of a Judiciary that needed restraining.  Perhaps their one
> miscalculation was the assumption that long terms of office would always
> insulate office-holders from the extremes of the moment.  They didn't
> account for the ability of people representing those extremes to become
> office-holders, giving them a secure, insulated base to work from.  Instead
> of insulating the Judiciary from the passions of the moment, those passions
> are enshrined in the legal system as a long as the individual holding those
> passions serves as a judge.
>

I think your concern that 'extremist' will sit unchecked on the
supreme court is not completely unfounded.  but there is nothing more
effective in diluting/moderating a view point then inclusion in a
process or organization.   How do you quiet a disgruntled employee?
Make him/her a manager, put them in charge of something, make them
responsible.  I think the framers had great faith in the rule of law
and its calming effects.

>
> > Good grief!........... Yes, we're so *very* lucky. Let's hope
> > democracy brings the same enlightened attitude to all the good peoples
> > of the world.
>
> I am dead-serious here.
>

So am i.  Iranian culture/government does not allow its women to enjoy
the same freedoms as western women.  It's a black mark on iran, to be
sure, treating its women folk so, but hey, its *their* country.

>
> There is a word for people who are utterly convinced of the righteousness of
> their cause and who are willing to impose it on other people whether they
> want it or not.
>
> It's not a complementary word.
>

Oh, come now, being called a republican isn't all that bad.

>
> > Perhaps not. convincing the current legislature that gay marriage is
> > deserving of legalization isn't a complete impossibility. Getting W
> > to sign it into law is. His power base will not allow him too. My
> > personal feeling on the matter is; morality is a dish best served cold,
> > as in from the grave.
>
> ???  Explain please.
>

Explain? There is a heavy 'moral' judgment against issues like gay
marriage and abortion in this country that makes it difficult (if not
impossible) to discuss (never mind legislate) in any meaningful way.
While this is disappointing it certainly isn't surprising.  How long
after the abolition of slavery before the civil rights victory?
forever and a day according to some.  Our president will not sign into
law a policy his religious power base does not support.

>
> > I'll say it again women and minorities in this
> > country did not always enjoy the same rights under the law/constitution
> > as white males. When we can talk about issues in terms of individual
> > rights/freedoms only, then will the conversation turn itself toward
> > resolution.
>
> That conversation in the US must occur within the framework of the
> Constitution.  If you toss the Constitution aside or bypass the amendment
> process and bend it to what you *know* is right, you invite everyone else to
> do the same.  The eventual result is anarchy.
>

I totally agree.  When I asked you if you feared imperial legislation
outside of your comfort zone I wasn't trying to comment on whether I
thought you were pro this or anti that, one way or the other.   I think
your concern is a reflection of where we are as a country.  Perhaps we
are simply not ready for the social changes we see coming.  Civil
rights, in particular were a long time in coming, some of us fighting
against it tooth and nail, but it came just the same.  And I think most
people will agree (now) that we're all better for it.

>
> I am not eager for a government of the lawyers by the lawyers and for the
> lawyers.
>

nor am i.

> I am not eager to see the business of the US endlessly tangled in legal red
> tape.  That's the direction we're headed.
>

Yes, again I think it's a symptom of a greater ill.  We are unable to
come together as a nation and form some kind of consensus.   A strong
leader who speaks for/to the *majority* of the public would go a long
way, imho, toward a cure.


> > Parts of this are so delusional; imho, I simply can't go there.
>
> Careful, dear.  This is freindly conversation.  You just made a decidedly
> UN-friendly comment.  (you have suggested that my point of view is
> "delusional")
>

Careful? What fun is that?  Yes, this is a friendly conversation that I
wish to keep friendly.  I had not meant to offend.   My comment was
directed at my general frustration with a belief/viewpoint that I
simply find, ah, 'beyond understanding.'  there was nothing
personal to it, but I do see how it could be read as such.  Mia cupla.


> If you strongly disagree with something I say but don't want to discuss it,
> I can honor that.  But I ask you to own your disagreement and desire to not
> follow up on it.  Don't go calling people names.
>
> What would your mom think?  :)
>

My mom? She would think I was crazy for having such a ridicules
conversation to begin with.  Not the least bit political, me mum.  Now
my dad.....he would just slap me upside the head with out a word for
setting myself up so nicely. :^)

besides all that it would be pretty rich of me to paint you as
delusional when i find myself agreeing with you more often then not.

>
> You want more?  I think I can do more if you want it.
>

No, no more just yet.  I think I'll be digging out from under this
avalanche of information for some time.  How do you keep all this stuff
in your head?

>
> I seriously doubt that egyptian cotton workers are paid more than their
> chinese counterparts or egyptian connton producers incur higher costs
> growing cotton.  It's that egypt is in a massive internal muddle and china
> isn't.  If Mubarak got his act together, you might see egyption-egyptian
> cotton again in 10 years.
>

It's not the Egyptian cotton workers pay that is driving the market.
 It's supply and demand.  China provides an economy of scale that
Egypt can't touch.  The US economy needs cheap goods to both keep the
cost of goods artificially low for consumers and profits artificially
high for retailers/wholesalers/distributors/and a lot of other folks I
can't think of right now.


>
> A lot of countries are in a mess like Egypt.  Most of the mideast is.  The
> entire continent of Africa is.  That's why, subtracting oil, (and IIRC) the
> economy of the entire arab states put together is about equal to something
> like Denmark.
>
> Don't fault globalism.  It's just underscoring what's already there.
>

If you swop out 'underscoring' with 'enabling' I'm with ya.

>
> I didn't say that.  I said Hugo Chaves says it's the rise of
> "everybody-else" too and that I didn't believe him either.  I don't think
> Hugo believes Hugo, but it's important to Hugo that you, and other people
> like you across the planet, do.
>

People like me?  I don't believe hugo either.  That part about
Chomsky made me laugh out loud.

> > You don't by chance work for the current administration do you? :^)
>
> What?  You think I'm Tony Snow posting under a pseudonym?
>

i noticed ya didn't answer the question, frosty :^)

that's it for me tonight.  i'll get to the rest of it some other time.

lg



--- NewsGate v1.0 gamma 2
 * Origin: *READ ONLY* rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated (3:640/1010)