NationStates Jolt Archive

Okay, I've noticed the past few years how Congressmen and women have been ignoring the Bill of Rights it seems. Not just on terror issues, but on religious issues and such. I personally think the Bill Of Rights should be interpretted literally in almost, if not all, cases. This is not only done by Republicans, but by Democrats as well. If they ever are told off for going against it, they say "It's outdated." or "This is not what the forefathers meant." How the hell are we supposed to know for sure what the forefathers would do if they were in today's world?!

Also, some of the Republicans don't like the Court system at all. They say that the court system should be gotten rid of whenever they don't get their way. It seems to me like they are piffy whiners.

The Democrats want to ban video games from the hands of minors and some want to make religion invisible in all public places. More whining when they learn that they can't get their way.

I find that the courts uphold the Constitution in most cases. (Not all, but most) and that people take out their frustrations on the court because they don't bother with the Bill of Rights anymore.

So my question is, do you think the Bill of Rights no longer makes any difference?

Dead as disco.

If it's dead, then I'm here with the defibrilator of a revolution!

Okay, I've noticed the past few years how Congressmen and women have been ignoring the Bill of Rights it seems. Not just on terror issues, but on religious issues and such. I personally think the Bill Of Rights should be interpretted literally in almost, if not all, cases. This is not only done by Republicans, but by Democrats as well. If they ever are told off for going against it, they say "It's outdated." or "This is not what the forefathers meant." How the hell are we supposed to know for sure what the forefathers would do if they were in today's world?!

Also, some of the Republicans don't like the Court system at all. They say that the court system should be gotten rid of whenever they don't get their way. It seems to me like they are piffy whiners.

The Democrats want to ban video games from the hands of minors and some want to make religion invisible in all public places. More whining when they learn that they can't get their way.

I find that the courts uphold the Constitution in most cases. (Not all, but most) and that people take out their frustrations on the court because they don't bother with the Bill of Rights anymore.

So my question is, do you think the Bill of Rights no longer makes any difference?


First of all.. with the whole republican judges thing.. i think they should stop whining... they got most of the judges accepted w/o the filibuster (though i am a republican myself) The democrats are, however the big complainers, protestors, and whiners... and no one can say otherwise. The constitution is upheld in most cases. IF someone really feels like the judges arent abiding by the bill of rights. there is always an appeals... and possibly, if its important enough, the Supreme court, which will absolutely uphold the constitution.

the bill of rights will never be dead as long as we still have a constitution.

First of all.. with the whole republican judges thing.. i think they should stop whining... they got most of the judges accepted w/o the filibuster (though i am a republican myself) The democrats are, however the big complainers, protestors, and whiners... and no one can say otherwise. The constitution is upheld in most cases. IF someone really feels like the judges arent abiding by the bill of rights. there is always an appeals... and possibly, if its important enough, the Supreme court, which will absolutely uphold the constitution.

I agree with you. But the question to that is would the Republicans be whiners, protestors, and complainers if they were the minority in the House, Senate, and didn't have the President on their side?

When I said they whine, it's because whenever they are being interviewed they sounds such like little kids who didn't get their dad to get them a drink at the vending machine. I mean, watch Scarboro Country or the O'Reilly Factor (He IS a registered Republican in his state). All the time, they bring guests who do nothing but whine about how the Constitution is being misread and the courts are all too liberal, morality is going downhill and all that.

The purpose of the court system is NOT to uphold morality, but to go by the constitution.

Okay, I've noticed the past few years how Congressmen and women have been ignoring the Bill of Rights it seems. Not just on terror issues, but on religious issues and such.


They most certainly turn a blind-eye today, yes.


I personally think the Bill Of Rights should be interpretted literally in almost, if not all, cases. This is not only done by Republicans, but by Democrats as well. If they ever are told off for going against it, they say "It's outdated." or "This is not what the forefathers meant." How the hell are we supposed to know for sure what the forefathers would do if they were in today's world?!


Most of what the founders thought are located in the Federalist Papers. Much of it still applies today--for ALL the first ten amendments.


Also, some of the Republicans don't like the Court system at all. They say that the court system should be gotten rid of whenever they don't get their way. It seems to me like they are piffy whiners.


I'm with ya on that one.


The Democrats want to ban video games from the hands of minors and some want to make religion invisible in all public places. More whining when they learn that they can't get their way.


But, but, it's for the parentless children! /sarc It sickens me as well.


I find that the courts uphold the Constitution in most cases. (Not all, but most) and that people take out their frustrations on the court because they don't bother with the Bill of Rights anymore.


There are several courts that choose to legislate from the bench, which is a definite departure from the constitution.


So my question is, do you think the Bill of Rights no longer makes any difference?

In reality, not much. :mad: But it well should.

Most of what the founders thought are located in the Federalist Papers. Much of it still applies today--for ALL the first ten amendments.

Yeah, too bad it's not required reading at schools. Most politicans probably have never read it either.

There are several courts that choose to legislate from the bench, which is a definite departure from the constitution.

Yes, that is true, but in the Schiavo case I don't think that was the issue. Nor do I think it is in most cases. Just in some cases in some select places.

There are several courts that choose to legislate from the bench, which is a definite departure from the constitution.

I've never seen a single Court "legislate" from the bench.

Generally, where I've seen the term "applied". Is to cases arrising under their jurisdiction, whereby, because of complaint, or suit, a law, or such is being "tried". Contrary to popular opinion (by some), the Judiciary is capable of over-ruling laws created by the Legislature (this is not legislating), requiring the legislature to take new paths, or rewrite existing laws to conform.

That is the purpose of the courts under US jurisprudence...

The Judiciary is not a panzy to the legislature, it is an empowered, living, arm of the same government, capable of taking action even against the government itself (on cases which arrise before her).

Yeah, too bad it's not required reading at schools. Most politicans probably have never read it either.


I hear ya, and am most certainly with you on that point.

I've never seen a single Court "legislate" from the bench.

Generally, where I've seen the term "applied". Is to cases arrising under their jurisdiction, whereby, because of complaint, or suit, a law, or such is being "tried". Contrary to popular opinion (by some), the Judiciary is capable of over-ruling laws created by the Legislature (this is not legislating), requiring the legislature to take new paths, or rewrite existing laws to conform.

That is the purpose of the courts under US jurisprudence...

The Judiciary is not a panzy to the legislature, it is an empowered, living, arm of the same government, capable of taking action even against the government itself (on cases which arrise before her).

Poor choice of words on my part. Many courts are actually pansies to the legislature, and don't do enough (I find that not striking down a law as cooperating and therefore the "legislating" from the bench--they're siding with the legislature and going along with whatever comes their way).

I find this with most gun control legislation. There are over 20,000 illegal laws on the books, and not many judiciaries have struck them down.

I personally think the Bill Of Rights should be interpretted literally in almost, if not all, cases.

I think the judiciary might disagree with you here. It's not the Constitution or Bill of Rights that matter, it's the way the Courts have interpreted them.

Poor choice of words on my part. Many courts are actually pansies to the legislature, and don't do enough (I find that not striking down a law as cooperating and therefore the "legislating" from the bench--they're siding with the legislature and going along with whatever comes their way).

I find this with most gun control legislation. There are over 20,000 illegal laws on the books, and not many judiciaries have struck them down.

Yeah, but you have to admit that 99% of people would be pissed off if some laws were over-ruled for being unconstitutional. I can think of one that is unconstitutional, but if I brought it up, I'd be branded as something I don't want to be branded as. Has to do with porn though.

I think the judiciary might disagree with you here. It's not the Constitution or Bill of Rights that matter, it's the way the Courts have interpreted them.

It's fine with me if they disagree. I know my views on the subject are unpopular.

The problem here is not with the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights is still alive and well, it is simply not being used correctly. It is being misinterpreted and slashed to ribbons. The courts have taken it upon themselves to personally interpret the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, which is something they are not given the right to do. It is the Judiciary system's job to uphold the current laws as they stand, not to interpret the moral and ethical issues as they see fit.

The problem here is not with the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights is still alive and well, it is simply not being used correctly. It is being misinterpreted and slashed to ribbons. The courts have taken it upon themselves to personally interpret the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, which is something they are not given the right to do. It is the Judiciary system's job to uphold the current laws as they stand, not to interpret the moral and ethical issues as they see fit.

Since when? By courts we are basically talking of district courts and the Supreme courts. Not county courts. It IS the job of the higher courts to decide if a law is constitutional or not.

Dead as disco.
Which really never died at all :cool:

*Dances like a dancing machine* :cool:

It's fine with me if they disagree. I know my views on the subject are unpopular.

It's not that they disagree, it's that the Bill of Rights (and subsequent amendments) aren't enough to make a proper decision in most cases.

It's not that they disagree, it's that the Bill of Rights (and subsequent amendments) aren't enough to make a proper decision in most cases.

Like what for instance? I can only think of abortion really. That is a tough one, which means, to me, that it should be a state issue. If the Bill of Rights doesn't cover it, most of the time it should be a state issue.

The problem here is not with the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights is still alive and well, it is simply not being used correctly. It is being misinterpreted and slashed to ribbons. The courts have taken it upon themselves to personally interpret the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, which is something they are not given the right to do. It is the Judiciary system's job to uphold the current laws as they stand, not to interpret the moral and ethical issues as they see fit.

Actually, it is the courts job to "interpret" the laws, Constitution and treatise which arrise in case before her (that's what courts do...)... You're right that they should stand by, but only in the case of the Constitution [it's not arguable]... However "laws" below that of the constitution, and those arrising due to treatise are treated inferior, and as such, it is in the judiciaries power (being in the form of Common Law courts) to interpret, and over-rule laws, where they can conflict with the higher laws.

The JUDICIARY is not a servant of the legislature; they are equal partners in government (as in any Common Law system of government).

The court most certainly have the power to nullify a law passed by the legislature, that it sees as in conflict with the "higher laws" (of the Constitution).... They are not forced merely to "enforce" laws... They can over-turn them where there is conflict.

If you honestly think "It is the Judiciary system's job to uphold the current laws as they stand, not to interpret the moral and ethical issues"; then you have failed US Government... The judiciary does not have to "uphold current laws as they stand"... They can nullify laws which conflict with the higher laws.... and are not bound by them.

IMHO it's not that they over-rule legislature too much; I don't think they over-rule them enough.

Yeah, but you have to admit that 99% of people would be pissed off if some laws were over-ruled for being unconstitutional. I can think of one that is unconstitutional, but if I brought it up, I'd be branded as something I don't want to be branded as. Has to do with porn though.

A great many people would be pissed, yes. But if they really want to change the Constitution, they can--there are mechanisms. But if they don't, they have to learn that it just can't be stomped on.

In my opinion, the republicans have every right to complain about the filibustering. The senate is only supposed to prevent a judge from being approved it there are "extreme circumstances". Clearly there are no extreme circumstances involved with any of the potential judges.

Unfortunately, McCain’s "agreement" with the democrats shows how many moderate Republican senators we have in our legislative branch.

That is why I am a Libertarian. No 'moderate' problems. Many similar ideals.

Like what for instance? I can only think of abortion really. That is a tough one, which means, to me, that it should be a state issue. If the Bill of Rights doesn't cover it, most of the time it should be a state issue.

Alright, a short list:

First Amendment: Under the Establishment Clause, "Congress shall make no law" has been scrapped. I doubt you'd want it literally interpreted.

Second Amendment: What does the justification clause mean? A judge could interpret it any way he wanted without relying on precedent. Incidentally, there's almost no precedent here, but that's a matter of practicality.

Fifth Amendment: How far should eminent domain extend to local governments? (case pending).

Eighth Amendment: How do you define "cruel and unusual?" (Recent case on juveniles)

Tenth Amendment: Volumes have been written on the tenth amendment.. exceptions are innumerable. Where should the Fed'l Gov't's power start and stop?

It's hard to explain any of these without referring to precedent.

A great many people would be pissed, yes. But if they really want to change the Constitution, they can--there are mechanisms. But if they don't, they have to learn that it just can't be stomped on.

Of course, all amendments besides the first 10 can be striked out. They did it after the Prohibition Act failed. I guess that's why they wanted a Gay Marriage amendment. That shit scared me though. I don't think Baby Boomers should decide how Generation X and Y are gonna live in that respect. It's insane. I think they know that more and more younger people are agreeing with gay marriage and it scares them. What do they care anyways? They won't be here in 40 years.

Of course, all amendments besides the first 10 can be striked out. They did it after the Prohibition Act failed. I guess that's why they wanted a Gay Marriage amendment. That shit scared me though. I don't think Baby Boomers should decide how Generation X and Y are gonna live in that respect. It's insane. I think they know that more and more younger people are agreeing with gay marriage and it scares them. What do they care anyways? They won't be here in 40 years.

You hit the very reason why this is a republic, rather than a pure democracy, where the simple majortiy (baby boomers) could use the 51% mob to overrule the 49% minority. Pure democracy is just that--mob rule--nothing more.

Not while I still have lungs to shout with and arms to fight with, it aint.

The day the Bill of Rights dies is the day I go out in a blaze of glory.

Seriously, there is no chance for the bill of rights to be forgotten completely in our age. If congress stops respecting the bill of rights, then count me in on the front lines of the revolution.
We'll never live in a fascist nation so long as I'm alive.

In my opinion, the republicans have every right to complain about the filibustering. The senate is only supposed to prevent a judge from being approved it there are "extreme circumstances". Clearly there are no extreme circumstances involved with any of the potential judges.

Clearly, eh? Just because you say so?

In my opinion, the republicans have every right to complain about the filibustering. The senate is only supposed to prevent a judge from being approved it there are "extreme circumstances". Clearly there are no extreme circumstances involved with any of the potential judges.

Unfortunately, McCain’s "agreement" with the democrats shows how many moderate Republican senators we have in our legislative branch.

That is why I am a Libertarian. No 'moderate' problems. Many similar ideals.

Wrong topic....

And your view of the US Senate regarding nominative filibuster does not match 200 years of US History... 20% of judicial nominees have faced filibuster in the Senate since 1789.

I have few "Similar" ideals with Republicans, and neither does any other "libertarian". I do agree with the "moderates" and "democrats" that this "filibuster" should stand, as it has, for 200 years... I agree with Warner, McCain, most of the present standing democrats, and Frist (when he filibustered Clinton nominees).... But disagree with many present senate Republicans.... that the filibuster most certainly should stand for appointees.

Republicans are generally for "Obtrusive" government and Nationalist Economics...

Democrats ae generally for "Obtrusive" government and Socialist Economics...

Libertarians are generally for unobtrusive government and free-market economics...

You show me where you're "Similar" and I'll show you where you're "Sleeping with the devil..."

Alright, a short list:

First Amendment: Under the Establishment Clause, "Congress shall make no law" has been scrapped. I doubt you'd want it literally interpreted.

Second Amendment: What does the justification clause mean? A judge could interpret it any way he wanted without relying on precedent. Incidentally, there's almost no precedent here, but that's a matter of practicality.

Fifth Amendment: How far should eminent domain extend to local governments? (case pending).

Eighth Amendment: How do you define "cruel and unusual?" (Recent case on juveniles)

Tenth Amendment: Volumes have been written on the tenth amendment.. exceptions are innumerable. Where should the Fed'l Gov't's power start and stop?

It's hard to explain any of these without referring to precedent.



"Congress shall make no law" is indeed something that should still be in effect. I support full freedom of speech. Whether it be the KKK, NAMBLA, PETA, Greenpeace.... Any other of those capital letter words.... As long as it's just talking and not doing, it's legal, and should remain legal. After all, the law is there to protect unpopular speech.

As for the other amendments, I think in those cases, they should look at the other writings by our forefathers such as the before mentioned Federalist Papers, Public and Private Papers of Thomas Jefferson, and Common Sense by Thomas Paine.

I know the internet has brought some challenges, but they should be done to the strictest constitutionality that they can. A yes or no is sometimes not a viable answer.

The Bill of Rights is as dead as dead can be. The Patriot Act of 2001, renewed 2004, states that the police can detain you without telling you why, detain you without a valid reason, and can even review what books you recently checked out from the library. "Hmm, Understanding Islam. Interesting choice of reading material, Billy." They have even gone as far as banning gay marriage and abortions in some states! It will be Federal law before we know it. The only right they are defending is the Second Amendment, the Right to Bear Arms. I am so out of here when I graduate. Japan sounds like a nice alternative...

"Congress shall make no law" is indeed something that should still be in effect.

There's no mention there of local governments, city councils, or county supervisors. Congress's money doesn't need to be involved for the Court to strike down an action as an endorsement of religion, but this comes from precedent (e.g. the Lemon test), rather than from the Bill of Rights.

But if you're saying the answers can be found in documents like the Federalist Papers, then how does that mean we can proceed simply from the Bill of Rights? You're making Justice Scalia's argument. Scalia is an originalist, so you've got that on the court today.

Support your local Revolution! Viva Pacifica! The Pacific Northwest must secede before we too become Conservative fascist police states! Rise up and join me, Comrades, as we sever all ties with the Bushists and storm to victory under a new banner, to the sound of Numa Numa! Viva la Revolucion!

"Congress shall make no law" is indeed something that should still be in effect. I support full freedom of speech. Whether it be the KKK, NAMBLA, PETA, Greenpeace.... Any other of those capital letter words.... As long as it's just talking and not doing, it's legal, and should remain legal. After all, the law is there to protect unpopular speech.
I think he means the part where it says "Law" and "congress". The meaning has been expanded to include policy, as well as just about every governmental body in existance.

I think he means the part where it says "Law" and "congress". The meaning has been expanded to include policy, as well as just about every governmental body in existance.

Oh. Well, when they first started doing this, what did the dissenters say? This started in the 1800s right? Some of the forefathers were still alive. What'd they say about it? What they said should go.

Oh. Well, when they first started doing this, what did the dissenters say? This started in the 1800s right? Some of the forefathers were still alive. What'd they say about it? What they said should go.

Closer to the 1940's and 1950's. That's when the more activist interpretations of religious establishment took hold.

Oh. Well, when they first started doing this, what did the dissenters say? This started in the 1800s right? Some of the forefathers were still alive. What'd they say about it? What they said should go.

Not really. The Constitution was made to be a malleable document. The forefathers were well aware that they might forget some things, get some things wrong, or that situations may change.

Originally, the 1st Amendment was held to apply only to the federal government - as were al of the amendments. After the 14th, they apply to all of government. Is this as it should be? I think so. Not that it matters what I think, because that became part of the Constitution the minute they added it.

The Bill of Rights is as dead as dead can be. The Patriot Act of 2001, renewed 2004, states that the police can detain you without telling you why, detain you without a valid reason, and can even review what books you recently checked out from the library. "Hmm, Understanding Islam. Interesting choice of reading material, Billy." They have even gone as far as banning gay marriage and abortions in some states! It will be Federal law before we know it. The only right they are defending is the Second Amendment, the Right to Bear Arms. I am so out of here when I graduate. Japan sounds like a nice alternative...

Actually you don't even have the Right to Bear arms: http://www.abanet.org/gunviol/secondamend.html

The United States Supreme Court and lower federal courts have consistently interpreted this Amendment only as a prohibition against Federal interference with State militia and not as a guarantee of an individual's right to keep or carry firearms. The argument that the Second Amendment prohibits all State or Federal regulation of citizen's ownership of firearms has no validity whatsoever.

Wrong topic....

And your view of the US Senate regarding nominative filibuster does not match 200 years of US History... 20% of judicial nominees have faced filibuster in the Senate since 1789.

I have few "Similar" ideals with Republicans, and neither does any other "libertarian". I do agree with the "moderates" and "democrats" that this "filibuster" should stand, as it has, for 200 years... I agree with Warner, McCain, most of the present standing democrats, and Frist (when he filibustered Clinton nominees).... But disagree with many present senate Republicans.... that the filibuster most certainly should stand for appointees.

Republicans are generally for "Obtrusive" government and Nationalist Economics...

Democrats ae generally for "Obtrusive" government and Socialist Economics...

Libertarians are generally for unobtrusive government and free-market economics...

You show me where you're "Similar" and I'll show you where you're "Sleeping with the devil..."

My apologies for bringing up a point addressed earlier in this thread.

In any case, it is very naive to believe that people are involved in any one party for the same reasons. I believe I mentioned 'moderate' senators. Republicans have a lot of them. Libertarians do not. Libertarians do not have the exact same ideals of the Republicans, I agree. Similar however, yes. And at least they hold firm beliefs.

Your Belief that Republicans focusing "Obtrusive" government and Nationalist Economics is not entirely true for all Republicans and thus makes it what I like to call "a biased opinion". What you consider to be the libertarians ideals are actually more what the Republicans are looking for. Unfortunately, moderate senators like McCain tend to influence people to believe otherwise.

About the filibusters, I believe that we should not eliminate them. Forming them more like the filibusters in the House of Reps would be much more efficient. Filibusters are for getting points across, not for talking the issue to death which it has sadly become since the founding of this government.

Actually you don't even have the Right to Bear arms: http://www.abanet.org/gunviol/secondamend.html

There's really only one SCOTUS decision on the Second Amendment, which was thoroughly flawed and hasn't been enforced. (aside from banning sawed-off shotguns) The assumptions in Lopez grant wider rights without any debate on the Second Amendment.

Closer to the 1940's and 1950's. That's when the more activist interpretations of religious establishment took hold.

Okay. Thanks for the info. I don't know shit about government between 1840-1960. Every time we were supposed to get that far in high school we never made it past the Civil War, and we had to skip Polk and the like to get there!

Yeah, the sixties was the growth and height of liberalism. When prayer and the Bible were banned from public schools.

Yes, the law should go for state law too in cases of religion and such, but where the Constitution is not specific as to the position of what to do in cases (abortion, gay marriage, drugs....) I think the states should choose. That's how it used to work, and that's how it should still work.

Your Belief that Republicans focusing "Obtrusive" government and Nationalist Economics is not entirely true for all Republicans and thus makes it what I like to call "a biased opinion". What you consider to be the libertarians ideals are actually more what the Republicans are looking for. Unfortunately, moderate senators like McCain tend to influence people to believe otherwise.

What a silly thing to say. McCain has been much more vocal in pushing an unobtrusive government than most Republicans. It is the moderates these days that are actually living up to the ideals that used to be the backbone of the party.

What a silly thing to say. McCain has been much more vocal in pushing an unobtrusive government than most Republicans. It is the moderates these days that are actually living up to the ideals that used to be the backbone of the party.

Agreed. Even Goldwater, before he died said he didn't like the way the Republican party was going, and he's like their posterchild!

Yes, the law should go for state law too in cases of religion and such, but where the Constitution is not specific as to the position of what to do in cases (abortion, gay marriage, drugs....) I think the states should choose. That's how it used to work, and that's how it should still work.

The Constitution doesn't say anything specific about most issues. This is why it must be interpreted. The Constitution says nothing specific about most issues we deal with. However, if you really think that the states should not be held to certain standards that are not explicit in the Constitution, you can do away with an awful lots of rights you probably think are protected. See Cat-Tribe for a list of them.

The Constitution doesn't say anything specific about most issues. This is why it must be interpreted. The Constitution says nothing specific about most issues we deal with. However, if you really think that the states should not be held to certain standards that are not explicit in the Constitution, you can do away with an awful lots of rights you probably think are protected. See Cat-Tribe for a list of them.

Okay. I'll take your word for it. Believe me, I lived in Virginia for a while and their state laws are dumb as it is. But isn't this the reason we have states? So we don't all have to live the same way? We can go where we are best suited.

I now live in North Carolina, which is more progressive than Virginia, but not as much as, say, Deleware. I like it that way. The state laws could use some tweaking but that takes time.

But the main issue is that the Bill of Rights should be respected, which it isn't anymore. It's sort of like how fundamentalists use the Bible to bash people. They take stuff out of context and say those people should be punished.

I see very little difference of how the Bill of Rights is being handled.

Agreed. Even Goldwater, before he died said he didn't like the way the Republican party was going, and he's like their posterchild!

Last I was aware; McCain and Goldwater were very different Republicans: McCain being of the moderate ideology, and Goldwater being of the conservative ideology. It would be very odd to say the least if Goldwater and McCain would have considered themselves to be similar.

About moderates representing the original ideals of the Republican Party, that again is an opinion. I am no politician so I will not argue in depth, but I will say that McCain pushes for liberalization in our government. He does not believe in privatization of social security, and (not directly related but nevertheless important to note) sponsored the McCain Feingold Campaign Reform which sprouted Moveon.org and even supported Michael Moore.

McCain adopts many liberal ideals, so I am not quite sure how you believe that he is following the original Republican ideals.

How do we know what the forefather's would have wanted with a Bill? It's easy. The courts decide. That's their purpose. That was the intent of the Supreme Court all along. There's no way that legislation (or a bill of rights) written decades ago could possibly specifically include directions or laws for EVERY possibility that may EVER occur. So, they built some cultural flexibility into the system, in other words the Supreme Court. The President (elected official, supposedly) nominates the judges and Congress (elected official, supposedly) confirms or denies those judges and in so doing they inject cultural perspective into the system. For example, the idea of a "right to privacy" is not technically in the Constitution but it was something the people felt was "right" at the time and so you have Supreme Court cases where the judges make a decision that essentially creates a "right to privacy." Without that sort of flexibility we'd have to pass new amendments to the Constitution every time some jackass comes up with some new way to be idiotic that's not expressly forbidden by the constitution.

if one interprets the 14th amendment the way the Supreme Court has, it's been dead since it's addition. not only is the population of the United States dual citizens of the states and the union itself, they're subject to the laws of congress. this interpretation has provided the framework for most of the sweeping changes to property (getting allodial title for land, etc) to be pushed through. the Supreme Court has actually had to filter the other 13 amendments through the 14th to make sure they're still valid. well, 11 of the 13. the 2nd and the 5th have never been attempted as of yet.

a link to an explanation is here on this page. (http://usa-the-republic.com/amendment_14/usa.html) (PDF format)

How do we know what the forefather's would have wanted with a Bill? It's easy. The courts decide. That's their purpose. That was the intent of the Supreme Court all along. There's no way that legislation (or a bill of rights) written decades ago could possibly specifically include directions or laws for EVERY possibility that may EVER occur. So, they built some cultural flexibility into the system, in other words the Supreme Court. The President (elected official, supposedly) nominates the judges and Congress (elected official, supposedly) confirms or denies those judges and in so doing they inject cultural perspective into the system. For example, the idea of a "right to privacy" is not technically in the Constitution but it was something the people felt was "right" at the time and so you have Supreme Court cases where the judges make a decision that essentially creates a "right to privacy." Without that sort of flexibility we'd have to pass new amendments to the Constitution every time some jackass comes up with some new way to be idiotic that's not expressly forbidden by the constitution.

IOW..... 9th Amendment..."The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."... IOW.. Not all "rights" have been enumerated.... And it is up to the legislature (and if they fail, the courts) to ensure those non-enumerated rights are protected (sic. Common Law Courts System).

Last I was aware; McCain and Goldwater were very different Republicans: McCain being of the moderate ideology, and Goldwater being of the conservative ideology. It would be very odd to say the least if Goldwater and McCain would have considered themselves to be similar.

McCain is not part of the religious right as most Republicans are now.

Here is some info on what Goldwater thought of the present day Republican party....

'In the 1990s he became a virtual outcast of the GOP leadership, aggravating so many social conservatives that some in Arizona suggested stripping his name from state Republican party headquarters, although the suggestion was never seriously followed up on. He endorsed Democrat Karan English in an Arizona congressional race, urged Republicans to lay off Clinton over the Whitewater scandal, and criticized the military's ban on homosexuals: "Everyone knows that gays have served honorably in the military since at least the time of Julius Caesar." He also said, "You don't have to be straight to be in the military; you just have to be able to shoot straight." He acknowledged, however, that in 37 years of military and reserve service he had not personally known any homosexual service members. In 1996 he told Bob Dole, who mounted his presidential campaign with less than ecstatic support from hard-line conservatives, "We're the new liberals of the Republican Party. Can you imagine that?" '

and Congress (elected official, supposedly) confirms or denies those judges and in so doing they inject cultural perspective into the system.

if one would look at the original senate rules, they were nominated by the state legislatures. this was so the states could have some sort of check to balance the federal government.

Without that sort of flexibility we'd have to pass new amendments to the Constitution every time some jackass comes up with some new way to be idiotic that's not expressly forbidden by the constitution.

if you read the constitution, or namely the Bill of Rights, you'll discover that every amendment after the first ten have given powers to the federal government. the constitution was to be modified if something important occured on a cultural level (slavery could have been here), we could stipulate more rights of the people. or further cage government's power if it had gotten too out-of-hand. Amending the constitution, if one reads the reasons for the Bill of Rights in the first place, was so that a government wouldn't seize more control of people. it wasn't to give more power to the very same government.

For example, the idea of a "right to privacy" is not technically in the Constitution but it was something the people felt was "right" at the time

it seems you don't understand the meaning of right, at least how it pertains to the constitution. it has nothing to do with right or wrong. the meaning is closer to "ability", though that's not entirely accurate either.. I have an inalienable right to be secure in my persons, papers, and posessions. I defend this right because of my right to assemble and my right to keep and bear arms. in this respect, our rights have deteriorated greatly.

McCain is not part of the religious right as most Republicans are now.

Here is some info on what Goldwater thought of the present day Republican party....

'In the 1990s he became a virtual outcast of the GOP leadership, aggravating so many social conservatives that some in Arizona suggested stripping his name from state Republican party headquarters, although the suggestion was never seriously followed up on. He endorsed Democrat Karan English in an Arizona congressional race, urged Republicans to lay off Clinton over the Whitewater scandal, and criticized the military's ban on homosexuals: "Everyone knows that gays have served honorably in the military since at least the time of Julius Caesar." He also said, "You don't have to be straight to be in the military; you just have to be able to shoot straight." He acknowledged, however, that in 37 years of military and reserve service he had not personally known any homosexual service members. In 1996 he told Bob Dole, who mounted his presidential campaign with less than ecstatic support from hard-line conservatives, "We're the new liberals of the Republican Party. Can you imagine that?" '

Yes, you're right. I believe the confusion is forming because we are both referring to two different Goldwater’s: the young conservative Goldwater, and the older moderate Goldwater. As you might recall, Goldwater ran for and lost the presidential election in 1964. Why? Simply put, he was considered too 'right wing'. In his later years however, he did mellow out and become more of a moderate.

My mistake, you win that one.

You hit the very reason why this is a republic, rather than a pure democracy, where the simple majortiy (baby boomers) could use the 51% mob to overrule the 49% minority. Pure democracy is just that--mob rule--nothing more.
*digs up the exact Thomas Jefferson quote*
A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, in which the 51% may take away the rights of the other 49%
Yep, democracy makes me all warm and fuzzy :rolleyes:

Well, we also have to look at this court nomination fiasco as part of the fact that in the last 30 years, the Democrats have primarily used the courts as a way to push their policy in the face of an increasing movement in the US to the right over the success/failures of New Deal/Great Society legislation and the the degradation of the counter culture/civil rights movement into violence.

I certainly think there has been court legislation through Roe vs Wade (pretty much a court decision saying that this is no longer the jurisdiction of states) and especially in a good bit of the Civil Rights movement in the South. The Federal courts unarguably were the ones pushing legislation in many areas during the time period.

I fully understand where both sides are coming from on this issue. The Democrats see one of their few ways to maintain their policy (which they believe is right) in the face of a majority they believe is wrong. The Republicans, who have a majority stance, believe they are being undermined through the court systems which isnt popularly elected. Judical meddling for good or bad, tends to get people upset one way or the other.

I don't think our civil rights, or our protections under the Constitution are at a threat at all (and I question in particular how any of our lives have been affected aside from longer lines in an already crappy airport system pre-9/11). This country has survived far worse problems of government with machine politics and horrendous corruption at the end of the 19th century. This appears to be (for me at least) much more an issue of the country still in turmoil over the sixties and seventies chaos, and movement towards the ends of the political spectrum at both sides.

We don't have the consensus that followed the end of WW2 to unite both sides, and moderates like John McCain are being pushed out by both sides of the party system.

Well, we also have to look at this court nomination fiasco as part of the fact that in the last 30 years, the Democrats have primarily used the courts as a way to push their policy in the face of an increasing movement in the US to the right over the success/failures of New Deal/Great Society legislation and the the degradation of the counter culture/civil rights movement into violence.

I certainly think there has been court legislation through Roe vs Wade (pretty much a court decision saying that this is no longer the jurisdiction of states) and especially in a good bit of the Civil Rights movement in the South. The Federal courts unarguably were the ones pushing legislation in many areas during the time period.

Article III Section 2.... The Judicary has power to hear cases between a state and citizen (basically making an appelate decision upon the legality, in face of supreme law, as towards state statute). This sets what is known as "precedent" (in Common Law) also called "Case Law". The case in question arose over the right of states (10th Amendment) in relation to rights still in retention of the people (9th Amendment), and whether the power of a state extended to the reproductive health and determination of a person (which can be construed from the 9th Amendment)... Basically, the court used the 9th Amendment to over-rule the state legislatures, setting Case Law, whereby, such power was left in respective reserve "to the people" (as part of 9th Amendment non-enumerated rights). In fact, it isn't legislation, in the sense it is "cementing in" a right, which is considered "natural and inalienable" to the people, if not-enumerated, now set about by Caw Law (precedent) whereby those laws would not be enforced by the appelate due to 9th Amendment restriction upon the state and federal governments.... Welcome to the United States, please enjoy your ride.... Keep all arms, legs and other apendatges inside the car at all times, for your own safety...


I fully understand where both sides are coming from on this issue. The Democrats see one of their few ways to maintain their policy (which they believe is right) in the face of a majority they believe is wrong. The Republicans, who have a majority stance, believe they are being undermined through the court systems which isnt popularly elected. Judical meddling for good or bad, tends to get people upset one way or the other.

Yes, part of the reason for courts and consitution, so the "majority" cannot just "get their way" through consensus of any issue they wish. Does tend to piss people off.... Though, it also usefull in any system whereby you have persons/parties in conflict who need resolution.


I don't think our civil rights, or our protections under the Constitution are at a threat at all (and I question in particular how any of our lives have been affected aside from longer lines in an already crappy airport system pre-9/11). This country has survived far worse problems of government with machine politics and horrendous corruption at the end of the 19th century. This appears to be (for me at least) much more an issue of the country still in turmoil over the sixties and seventies chaos, and movement towards the ends of the political spectrum at both sides.

We don't have the consensus that followed the end of WW2 to unite both sides, and moderates like John McCain are being pushed out by both sides of the party system.

Exactly, I respect McCain, Warner, and other Republicans in the senate who are seeking to uphold this principle minority protection.... I don't like people like Frist, who have used the filibuster, before, on nominees, and now wants to remove it, merely because "he can't get his way" or his "party can't get their way"...

The Democrats want to ban video games from the hands of minors and some want to make religion invisible in all public places. More whining when they learn that they can't get their way.

Mostly I see politicians trying to force their Judeo-Christian religious beliefs down the throats of everyone in this nation, and I for one am sick to death of it! Damn it, but I wish they'd get a clue!