NationStates Jolt Archive

playing Paranoia.

Sweet. *bows*

Well if that be so true, that this country was not founded on christianity, then how come every single piece of money that is in circulation today has "IN GOD WE TRUST" on it.Ask Joe McCarthy and every bleeding hunk of cowardly shit involved in his motivations.
Educate yourself and get back to us.

is that when you simultaniously are and are not having sex with a cat?

[/thread] ? :D

[/thread] ? :D

maybe :p

I don't know, you're asking me?I'm asking if the cognitive dissociation is directly correlated to escapism from my real life .... that would explain a lot.
Its your brain I'm housed in. You must've been using it for something.

What happened, big project at work?

Finally finishing that novel you been workin' on?I was trying to figure out pig latin cognates.

Remember, Straughn, my attempt to develop indepedent neural tissue failed, so I still have to use yours. That thing you blew out of your nose was supposed to allow me to have discrete cognitive functions.Can't help that part. It was mixed with the paint fumes and dirt. You know ...

Straughn, look, we can't burn in hell.Eh, i got nothing planned. 'sides, i'm married to more than just NSG.
Won't you join me in explaining to these people that McCain is right?Erm, i'd have to actually have been listening to him ... goes to show, what with all that passive listening i do when i'm on here - you're getting the brunt of it.
You're just lucky i'm not on when wifey's watching her style and fashion shows.

But relative to the other republican candidates (with the exception of RuPaul), he's not all that bad.

That's perhaps the saddest part of all of this.

I think the USA is fucked. In the ass.

We have been for quite a few years now ...
maybe this is the part on that Smith movie where the girl is reading the book while the guy's havin' away at her ... and she takes notes.

That "smith movie" is "Mallrats" and don't you DARE ever refer to it as anything other than its proper name.

That's perhaps the saddest part of all of this.

I think the USA is fucked. In the ass.

We have been for quite a few years now ...
maybe this is the part on that Smith movie where the girl is reading the book while the guy's havin' away at her ... and she takes notes.

We have been for quite a few years now ...
maybe this is the part on that Smith movie where the girl is reading the book while the guy's havin' away at her ... and she takes notes.

'Kevin Smith' is the name for God on the lips and hearts of all internet geeks.


:)

You MUST play. We really need more people and the characters we have are really good.

Been about 7 years since I last rolled a d20.
I'm willing to delurk to join in.

You know he's just pandering to the right with that rhetoric, right?

Even if true, the "he's just pandering" excuse fails to justify or even minimize lying about the Constitution.

His record is divergent of what many Evangelicals want.

What record is that? He ranks as a solidly Christian Conservative on most issues -- including abortion, school prayer, creationism in schools, etc.

His lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union is 82.3%.

His rating by the Christian Coalition is 83%.

Even if true, the "he's just pandering" excuse fails to justify or even minimize lying about the Constitution.



What record is that? He ranks as a solidly Christian Conservative on most issues -- including abortion, school prayer, creationism in schools, etc.

His lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union is 82.3%.

His rating by the Christian Coalition is 83%.

What's scary is that's still (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/11/us/politics/11repubs.html?_r=1&sq=mccain&st=cse&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&scp=5&adxnnlx=1203101022-R42pb/okdaBHeFKA6KBf4g) not (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53743) enough (http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Feb13/0,4670,EvangelicalsThirdParty,00.html) for the base.

“I think that if John is the nominee,” Mr. Bush said, “he has got some convincing to do to convince people that he is a solid conservative. And I’ll be glad to help him if he is the nominee.”


At this point, McCain turned pale, shook, fell to his knees and screamed up at the sky, "NNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!"

Well if that be so true, that this country was not founded on christianity, then how come every single piece of money that is in circulation today has "IN GOD WE TRUST" on it.

I'd let this all go as already adequately responded to, but you also sent me a flaming TG. So, let's talk about it.

First, just to be picky, there is a difference between saying this country was founded on Christianity and saying the Constitution establishes a Christian Nation. John McCain said the second -- which is indefensible.

Second, as has been noted, In God We Trust was added to our money nearly a century after the Founding of our Constitution. It is therefore evidence perhaps of increased piety and a loss of perspective during the Civil War, but is irrelevant to whether our nation was founded on Christianity.

Finally, I'm not going to rehash all the facts that show this is not a nation founded on Christianity, but I invite you to read the following: see, e.g., A Nation of Christians Is Not a Christian Nation (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/07/opinion/07meacham.html); Is America A 'Christian Nation'? (http://www.au.org/site/PageServer?pagename=resources_brochure_christiannation); America's Government Is Secular (http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html).

I mean your sitting on here preaching about seperation of church and state but obviously the government doesnt seem to mind it so much.

You seem to arguing the fallacious position that just because the government has violated separation of Church and State in the past (or violates a strict separation on some point now), we must abandon the principle altogether. That turns reason on its head.

That we are sometimes lax in protecting separation of Church and State is an argument for more vigilance, not less.

Also up until the late 1900's, when ignorant people like YOU came around. We still had prayer in school and it was still ok to say "ONE NATION UNDER GOD" whilst saying the pledge of alligence. So dont fucking come in here with your tyranical, athiest bullshit. THIS COUNTRY WAS FOUNDED ON CHRISTIANITY AND THE BELIEF IN GOD AND THATS WHAT IT NEEDS TO GET BACK TO.

1. As I noted earlier in this thread, the Supreme Court's invocation of separation of Church and State dates back to at least 1878, so it was established well before the late 1900s. See Reynolds v. United State (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=98&invol=145)s, 98 U.S. 145 (1878),

2. The history of prayer in school in this country is a complicated one, but Engel v. Vitale (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/370/421.html), 370 U.S. 421 (1962), was a correct, if belated, protection of our freedoms.

3. Despite the indisputable logic of the Ninth Circuit's opinion in Newdow v. U.S. Congress (http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/conlaw/newdowus62602opn.pdf) (2002)(pdf), "under God" is still in the Pledge of Allegience, having been improperly added in 1954. But, as I explained earlier, the fact that we allow this violation of the First Amendment doesn't mean we should allow futher violations. To the contrary, it is proof we must be vigilant.

4. There is nothing tyrannical or athiestic about the separation of Church and State. Religions, particularly Christianity, prosper in the United States BECAUSE WE HAVE RELIGIOUS FREEDOM!

The last part of the constitution first sentance states, We therefore the represnetatives of the United States of America in general congress assembled appealing to the SUPREME JUDGE OF THE WORLD, is a direct reference to god.

You aren't quoting from the U.S. Constitution, but rather from the Declaration of Independence (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html), which is not a governing document and does not have the force of law. Moreover, the Declaration's invocations are of a generic religious nature and are not specific references to a Christian God.

<snip>You should seriously bold some of those dates for emphasis and ask the mods to check out that TG.

You should seriously bold some of those dates for emphasis and ask the mods to check out that TG.

No, it was a minor flame at best and I'm not sure he/she wasn't joking. I think it is best handled by argument here in the thread.

Second, as has been noted, In God We Trust was added to our money nearly a century after the Founding of our Constitution.
The slogan which the Founders put on our first issue of currency (after the Constitution; I don't know what the Continental Congress had on theirs) was-- are you ready for this? I'm not making this up:
MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS

I like that slogan a lot better. Can we get it back?

One more reason to vote for McCain: it'll piss off the Christophobes :headbang:

Supporting secularism makes one a "Christophobe?"

That's news to me.

Supporting secularism makes one a "Christophobe?"

That's news to me.

For TMC, not supporting a Christian Theocracy makes one a "Christophobe."

Bloody hell. So much for McCain as a reasonably sane Presidential candidate.

For TMC, not supporting a Christian Theocracy makes one a "Christophobe."

Guess that makes the vast majority of NSGers, even Christian ones, "Christophobes."

Who's TMC?

Guess that makes the vast majority of NSGers, even Christian ones, "Christophobes."

In the eyes of TMC? Probably.

That "smith movie" is "Mallrats" and don't you DARE ever refer to it as anything other than its proper name.
I thought it was Mallrats, but it's been such a long time since i'd been thinking of it, i kept thinking of stinkpalm and superfluous third nipples. Couldn't remember if that part was still in it or not. :)

'Kevin Smith' is the name for God on the lips and hearts of all internet geeks.


:)

Chasing Amy.

I dunno if anyone has posted this yet, but I happen to have direct evidence that the founding fathers had no intention of making America a Christian country.

As the government of The United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Musselmen..."

-George Washington This was said in the treaty of Tripoli and was also signed by John Adams

To say that the human soul, angels, god, are immaterial, is to say they are nothings, or that there is no god, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise...

-Thomas Jefferson

Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.

-Thomas Jefferson

During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.

-James Madison

Lighthouses are more useful than churches.

-Benjamin Franklin

So then, what john McCain has said is not only offensive to every non-Christian the world over, it is an absolute travesty to history. I will not vote for, or take seriously, any man who spouts such ridiculous nonsense. I swear, The founding fathers are spinning in their graves right now. This makes me very mad.

Actually in many ways the American founding fathers were adherents of the of the 18th century liberal rationalism and natural rights 'deism' if you like, they certainly weren't apart of the American conservative Christian 'Thermidorian Reaction' of this century...

I dunno if anyone has posted this yet, but I happen to have direct evidence that the founding fathers had no intention of making America a Christian country.

*snip*
So then, what john McCain has said is not only offensive to every non-Christian the world over, it is an absolute travesty to history. I will not vote for, or take seriously, any man who spouts such ridiculous nonsense. I swear, The founding fathers are spinning in their graves right now. This makes me very mad.

Wow. Are you and I agreeing on something a sign of the Apocalypse? :p

Wow. Are you and I agreeing on something a sign of the Apocalypse? :p

Yes. The end of the world is coming. EVERYBODY PANIC!!!!!!!!!!! :eek:

:p

Wow. Are you and I agreeing on something a sign of the Apocalypse? :p

OH, hey cat-tribe, didn';t see u there

ahem

The christians are right, McCain is a modern conservative hero.

OH, hey cat-tribe, didn';t see u there

ahem

The christians are right, McCain is a modern conservative hero.

:D

IThe founding fathers are spinning in their graves right now. This makes me very mad.




They have been for some time now...

"There is nothing moderate about a man that would seek to abolish abortion, have schools lead prayers, and teach creationism. (And appoint judges that agree with this agenda)."

You seem to misunderstand what the word "moderate" means.

Abortion:
Left veiw- completly legal
right veiw-completly illegal
moderate veiw- Either legal in early stages, or illegal exept in certian cases, such as when the mother is in grave danger.

School prayer:
Left veiw- Can't pray in school
Right veiw- Mandatory prayer
Moderate- Optional prayer sesion

Teaching Creationism:
left veiw- Creationism shouldn't be taught
moderate veiw- All beliefs, evolution and creationism, should be taught
Right Veiw- Evolution should not be taught at all.

"There is nothing moderate about a man that would seek to abolish abortion, have schools lead prayers, and teach creationism. (And appoint judges that agree with this agenda)."

You seem to misunderstand what the word "moderate" means.

Abortion:
Left veiw- completly legal
right veiw-completly illegal
moderate veiw- Either legal in early stages, or illegal exept in certian cases, such as when the mother is in grave danger.

School prayer:
Left veiw- Can't pray in school
Right veiw- Mandatory prayer
Moderate- Optional prayer sesion

Teaching Creationism:
left veiw- Creationism shouldn't be taught
moderate veiw- All beliefs, evolution and creationism, should be taught
Right Veiw- Evolution should not be taught at all.There are very, very few places where this type of balance exists.

"There is nothing moderate about a man that would seek to abolish abortion, have schools lead prayers, and teach creationism. (And appoint judges that agree with this agenda)."

You seem to misunderstand what the word "moderate" means.

Abortion:
Left veiw- completly legal
right veiw-completly illegal
moderate veiw- Either legal in early stages, or illegal exept in certian cases, such as when the mother is in grave danger.

School prayer:
Left veiw- Can't pray in school
Right veiw- Mandatory prayer
Moderate- Optional prayer sesion

Teaching Creationism:
left veiw- Creationism shouldn't be taught
moderate veiw- All beliefs, evolution and creationism, should be taught
Right Veiw- Evolution should not be taught at all.

Ah. I see. I just lacked your firm grasp of the issues.

EDIT: Apparently, I'm a moderate on abortion because I belive in Roe v. Wade, my view (prayer is completely voluntary) isn't represented by any side, and teaching science rather than religion is a left view that just happens to be endorsed by pretty much all scientists.

"There is nothing moderate about a man that would seek to abolish abortion, have schools lead prayers, and teach creationism. (And appoint judges that agree with this agenda)."

You seem to misunderstand what the word "moderate" means.

Abortion:
Left veiw- completly legal
right veiw-completly illegal
moderate veiw- Either legal in early stages, or illegal exept in certian cases, such as when the mother is in grave danger.

School prayer:
Left veiw- Can't pray in school
Right veiw- Mandatory prayer
Moderate- Optional prayer sesion

Teaching Creationism:
left veiw- Creationism shouldn't be taught
moderate veiw- All beliefs, evolution and creationism, should be taught
Right Veiw- Evolution should not be taught at all.

If any "moderate" told me that they think we should teach creationism and evolution Id laugh at them.

School prayer:
Left veiw- Can't pray in school
Right veiw- Mandatory prayer
Moderate- Optional prayer sesion

Teaching Creationism:
left veiw- Creationism shouldn't be taught
moderate veiw- All beliefs, evolution and creationism, should be taught
Right Veiw- Evolution should not be taught at all.

speaking as a member of right wing I would grab my gun if the government ever made prayer in schools mandatory or stated that evolution should not be taught

most people I talk to on the right wing want a period of free time, a moment of silence or what have you when kids could choose to pray at school and want evolution to be taught as what it is, a theory, a darn good theory and probably right but still just a theory

and for the reccord McCain said he wants abortion to go back to the states....you know.....where it belongs

Schrandtopia;13460492']a theory, a darn good theory and probably right but still just a theoryOf course, the atomic theory was "just a theory"

Of course, the atomic theory was "just a theory"

well, by definition, it is

Schrandtopia;13460545']and for the reccord McCain said he wants abortion to go back to the states....you know.....where it belongs


I disagree.

Left veiw- Can't pray in school

Nobody says that.

And I'm probably far more "left" than the people you're thinking of.

Schrandtopia;13460545']and for the reccord McCain said he wants slavery to go back to the states....you know.....where it belongs

Now, if he had said that, would you agree with him? Of course not! And why? Because the federal government should never authorize the states to deprive people of rights.

Now, if he had said that, would you agree with him? Of course not! And why? Because the federal government should never authorize the states to deprive people of rights.



At first I read your edited quote and was like WTF McCain didnt say that!

Then I realized what you did.


Well done.

Now, if he had said that, would you agree with him? Of course not! And why? Because the federal government should never authorize the states to deprive people of rights.

no, I'd say that because of the 14th ammendment

states take rights away from people all the time and unless it violates the constitution the federal government can't really do anything about it

Actually, yes, they can. Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments. States can not deprive people of rights any more than the federal government can.

sure they can, my state takes away rights that are not adressed in the constitution, like the right to class II weapons and fireworks

Schrandtopia;13460757']no, I'd say that because of the 14th ammendment

states take rights away from people all the time and unless it violates the constitution the federal government can't really do anything about it

Actually, yes, they can. Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments. States can not deprive people of rights any more than the federal government can.

Schrandtopia;13460757']no, I'd say that because of the 14th ammendment

Missed it by that (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) much. See, this amuses me. People who try to argue what the constitution says who don't even know what amendment says what.

states take rights away from people all the time and unless it violates the constitution the federal government can't really do anything about it

the bolded part is the problem of your argument.

Schrandtopia;13460651']well, by definition, it is

And suffices thusly.

Whether that's constitutional is another issue. I'd argue that it is not.

I would too, and since the right to own fireworks is not protected in the constitution its up to the states to decide

legal minds a lot smarter than me have said abortion isn't adressed in the constitution and as such it should be up to the states

Schrandtopia;13460934']
legal minds a lot smarter than me have said abortion isn't adressed in the constitution and as such it should be up to the states

and other legal minds a lot smarter than you have said it is. Notably O'Connor
Kennedy, Souter, Stevens and Blackmun.

And since 5 is greater than 4....

Schrandtopia;13460785']sure they can, my state takes away rights that are not adressed in the constitution, like the right to class II weapons and fireworks

Whether that's constitutional is another issue. I'd argue that it is not.

9th Amendment. It's not up to the states to decide.


The prevalant legal opinion is that it's the 14th amendment, not the 9th.

Schrandtopia;13460934']I would too, and since the right to own fireworks is not protected in the constitution its up to the states to decide
9th Amendment. It's not up to the states to decide.

(On a technical note, heavily regulating fireworks is constitutional. An outright ban is not. And, as far as I know, all states allow private individuals to acquire fireworks as long as they go through the proper channels.)

(On a technical note, heavily regulating fireworks is constitutional. An outright ban is not. And, as far as I know, all states allow private individuals to acquire fireworks as long as they go through the proper channels.)

you can't in my state. you can if you are a heavily regulated company, but not as an individual

The prevalant legal opinion is that it's the 14th amendment, not the 9th.

Well, both in tandem, at least relating to fireworks and such. At least, I think it's the ninth amendment. That's the one about rights not enumerated in the Constitution, right?

I'm pretty much only taking the position I am now because it amuses me. I have no idea how accurate it is from a legal perspective, and I honestly doubt that it is.

"There is nothing moderate about a man that would seek to abolish abortion, have schools lead prayers, and teach creationism. (And appoint judges that agree with this agenda)."

You seem to misunderstand what the word "moderate" means.

Abortion:
Left veiw- completly legal
right veiw-completly illegal
moderate veiw- Either legal in early stages, or illegal exept in certian cases, such as when the mother is in grave danger.

School prayer:
Left veiw- Can't pray in school
Right veiw- Mandatory prayer
Moderate- Optional prayer sesion

Prayer to whose God or religion? Shall we include optional Scientology Auditing, Raelian Sensual Meditation, or just optional prayer of the kind you approve of? What about those people with a religion that doesn't involve prayer? Do they sit in the corner? If the practices of your religion are allowed optionally on school time, what about Wiccan skyclad dancing? Or would it just be the kind of prayer your religion does that is an option?

Do the tax dollars of non-prayers pay for the time, space, and people to handle this optional prayer?

Or maybe could maybe people freely practice their religion on their own time with their own resources?


Teaching Creationism:
left veiw- Creationism shouldn't be taught
moderate veiw- All beliefs, evolution and creationism, should be taught
Right Veiw- Evolution should not be taught at all.

Ah, so the moderate view is to teach ALL beliefs. So that includes that Xenu planted spaces alien souls here and detonated them in volcanoes. Or that we are genetically engineered by space aliens.

These beliefs are sincerely held by some Americans as part of their 1st Amendment protected beliefs. If everybody else has to learn your Christian beliefs, then by your own statement (ALL beliefs), your children have to learn Scientology, Raelianism, or God forbid even Islam.

If everyone's kids are required to be taught your beliefs, then it works both ways.

Incidentally, your tactic of "moderation" is essentally this:

Rape and Murder:
Left View: I may not rape or kill.
Moderate View: I may rape but not kill.
Right View: I may rape and kill.

Theft:
Left View: I may not steal.
Moderate View: I may steal cash but not cars.
Right View: I may steal anything.


See how moving one end of the spectrum far enough out to put you in the ostensible middle doesn't really make you moderate?

Schrandtopia;13460545']and for the reccord McCain said he wants abortion to go back to the states....you know.....where it belongs

Really? Even assuming "returning" the issue to the states wouldn't be denying consitutional rights to women, McCain's position isn't that simple.

"I have stated time after time after time that Roe v. Wade was a bad decision, that I support the rights of the unborn."
Source: Meet the Press: 2007 "Meet the Candidates" series May 13, 2007

On “Meet the Press,” McCain said he had “come to the conclusion that the exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother are legitimate exceptions” to an outright ban on abortions. “I don’t claim to be a theologian, but I have my moral beliefs.” If Roe v. Wade is overturned and abortion outlawed, McCain said he believes doctors who performed abortions would be prosecuted. “But I would not prosecute a woman” who obtained an abortion.
Source: Boston Globe, p. A9 Jan 31, 2000

McCain said he thought Roe v. Wade should be overturned and said he would support exceptions to a ban on abortion in cases of rape, incest, and when the mother’s life is in danger.
Source: Boston Globe, p. A11 Jan 22, 2000

A spokesman said that McCain “has a 17-year voting record of supporting efforts to overturn Roe vs. Wade. He does that currently, and will continue to do that as president.”
Source: Ron Fournier, Associated Press Aug 24, 1999

McCain supports the following statements:
1. Abortions should be legal only when the pregnancy resulted from incest, rape, or when the life of the woman is endangered.
2. Prohibit the late-term abortion procedure known as “partial-birth” abortion.
3. Prohibit public funding of abortions and public funding of organizations that advocate or perform abortions.
Source: Project Vote Smart, 1998, www.vote-smart.org Jul 2, 1998

linky (http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/John_McCain_Abortion.htm)

and other legal minds a lot smarter than you have said it is. Notably O'Connor
Kennedy, Souter, Stevens and Blackmun.

And since 5 is greater than 4....

Yes, many on here seem unaware of Planned Parenthood v. Casey (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/505/833.html), 505 U.S. 833 (1992).

Not to mention the original 7: Chief Justice Burger, Justices Blackmun, Douglas, Brennan, Stewart, Marshall, and Powell. See Roe v. Wade (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/410/113.html), 410 U.S. 113 (1973)

Schrandtopia;13460934']I would too, and since the right to own fireworks is not protected in the constitution its up to the states to decide

legal minds a lot smarter than me have said abortion isn't adressed in the constitution and as such it should be up to the states

There are more things in the Constitution, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy. :D

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects fundamental "liberty" from government actions. Here is an explanatory quote from the Supreme Court - this one written by Chief Justice Rehnquist and joined by Justices O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas (emphasis added):

The Due Process Clause guarantees more than fair process, and the "liberty" it protects includes more than the absence of physical restraint. Collins v. Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115, 125 (1992) (Due Process Clause "protects individual liberty against `certain government actions regardless of the fairness of the procedures used to implement them' ") (quoting Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 331 (1986)). The Clause also provides heightened protection against government interference with certain fundamental rights and liberty interests. Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 301 -302 (1993); Casey, 505 U.S., at 851 . In a long line of cases, we have held that, in addition to the specific freedoms protected by the Bill of Rights, the "liberty" specially protected by the Due Process Clause includes the rights to marry, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967); to have children, Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942); to direct the education and upbringing of one's children, Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923); Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925); to marital privacy, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965); to use contraception, ibid; Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972); to bodily integrity, Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952), and to abortion, Casey, supra. We have also assumed, and strongly suggested, that the Due Process Clause protects the traditional right to refuse unwanted lifesaving medical treatment. Cruzan, 497 U.S., at 278 -279.

-- Washington v. Glucksberg (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/96-110.html), 521 U.S.702 (1997).

Additionally, here are just a few examples of Constitutional rights that are not "spelled out" in the Constitution but that are taken for granted as protected by US citizens[/B]:

the right to vote, subject only to reasonable restrictions to prevent fraud
the right to cast a ballot in equal weight to those of other citizens
the right to a presumption of innocence and to demand proof beyond a reasonable doubt before being convicted of a crime
the right to travel within the United States
the right to marry or not to marry
the right to make one's own choice about having children
the right to have children at all
the right to direct the education of one's children as long as one meets certain minimum standards set by the state (i.e., to be able to send children to private schools or to teach them at home)
the right to custody of one's children
the right to choose and follow a profession
right to bodily integrity

States can not deprive people of rights any more than the federal government can.

And yet they both do. All the time. Which proves that the Constitution, for all the veneration heaped upon it, is a worthless scrap of paper.

And yet they both do. All the time. Which proves that the Constitution, for all the veneration heaped upon it, is a worthless scrap of paper.

Things aren't that desperate. Over the centuries and decades the Constitution has routinely protected our freedoms and our equal protection under the law. While government may occassionally overstep its bounds -- and that has happened to vast degrees from time to time -- the system corrects itself.

There are freedoms we exercise every day that wouldn't be secure if it were not for the Constitution.

The Bush administrations assault on the Constitution is a serious one, but it is one the Constitution will survive. It has survived worse before.

the Constitution, for all the veneration heaped upon it, is a worthless scrap of paper.
So did Bush actually say that? [/side]

The Bush administrations assault on the Constitution is a serious one, but it is one the Constitution will survive. It has survived worse before.
Odd how i can hear that from a lot of people and still hold a moderate amount of despair, but when you say it, it doesn't seem so bleak.
Sounds sappy, but i thought i should say that.

Additionally, here are just a few examples of Constitutional rights that are not "spelled out" in the Constitution but that are taken for granted as protected by US citizens:

the right to vote, subject only to reasonable restrictions to prevent fraud
the right to cast a ballot in equal weight to those of other citizens the right to a presumption of innocence and to demand proof beyond a reasonable doubt before being convicted of a crime
the right to travel within the United States
the right to marry or not to marry
the right to make one's own choice about having children
the right to have children at all
the right to direct the education of one's children as long as one meets certain minimum standards set by the state (i.e., to be able to send children to private schools or to teach them at home)
the right to custody of one's children
the right to choose and follow a profession
right to bodily integrity

Several of these (bolded) can most definitely not be "taken for granted".

Several of these (bolded) can most definitely not be "taken for granted".

I'm not sure what you are saying.

All of those on the list, including the ones you bolded, are not expressly stated anywhere in the Constitution.

Nonetheless, I would hold (and most Americans would agree I think) that they are rights protected by the Constitution from infingement by the government.

Which part of that, if any, are you objecting to?

So did Bush actually say that? [/side]

If he did, I wouldn't be surprised.

McCain fundamentally misunderstands both the language and the spirit of the U.S. Constitution and, accordingly, is not fit to lead this country.
I don't think this is evidence that McCain misunderstands the constitution. This is evidence that McCain is aware of the voters' misunderstanding of the constitution.

That's a very different thing. Your description makes McCain an idiot. Mine makes him manipulative, and since he's a politician that shouldn't surprise anyone.

Nonetheless, I would hold (and most Americans would agree I think) that they are rights protected by the Constitution from infingement by the government.
Many people have been or continue to be denied some or all of those "rights". I take it for granted that this will continue to be the case.

Nobody says that.

And I'm probably far more "left" than the people you're thinking of.

How would they enforce it anyway?

Teacher: Timmy! What are you doing, sitting there quietly?

Timmy: Erm... I was fantasising about the girl sitting in front of me and trying to sneak a look down her top?

Teacher: Don't give me that! You were praying weren't you?

Timmy: No sir! Really, I wasn't!

Teacher: Communing with the divine in a public school? You'll be expelled for this you little wretch!

:confused:

Many people have been or continue to be denied some or all of those "rights". I take it for granted that this will continue to be the case.

I'm not sure that "many people" in the U.S. are denied "some or all" of those rights, but that is really a side issue. I am certainly aware that some rights, like the right to marry, have not been recognized to exist as broadly as it should. (It is no more correct to deny the right to marry on the basis of gender than it is on the basis of race, for example.)

But I think this is a side-issue. I don't think you are denying either that the rights I listed ought to be protected by the Constitution or that they have been at least to some degree so protected. The key point is that having not been specifically enumerated has little or nothing to do with whether something is a fundamental constitutional right.

I don't think this is evidence that McCain misunderstands the constitution. This is evidence that McCain is aware of the voters' misunderstanding of the constitution.

That's a very different thing. Your description makes McCain an idiot. Mine makes him manipulative, and since he's a politician that shouldn't surprise anyone.

You make a good point, but I am somehow not comforted by the idea that McCain knows he is lying in a fundamental way about the Constitution but feels it advantageous to do so.

But you are correct that the fact that what McCain said is idiotic does not necessarily mean he is an idiot. He can simply be evil.

I don't think you are denying either that the rights I listed ought to be protected by the Constitution or that they have been at least to some degree so protected.
I would certainly not be allowed to marry, would be unlikely to be allowed custody of a child, could not take up the military as a profession if I wanted to and do not feel secure that I would be permitted to continue in the teaching profession everywhere. These are the kinds of rights that courts *may or may not* protect, certainly not rights that have any appearance of being "constitutional".
The key point is that having not been specifically enumerated has little or nothing to do with whether something is a fundamental constitutional right.
And that, precisely, is where I am disagreeing with you. The rights that are not specifically enumerated might or might not get protected depending on how the court feels about you personally; I would not consider that the US Constitution affords any protection for them.

I would certainly not be allowed to marry, would be unlikely to be allowed custody of a child, could not take up the military as a profession if I wanted to and do not feel secure that I would be permitted to continue in the teaching profession everywhere. These are the kinds of rights that courts *may or may not* protect, certainly not rights that have any appearance of being "constitutional".

And that, precisely, is where I am disagreeing with you. The rights that are not specifically enumerated might or might not get protected depending on how the court feels about you personally; I would not consider that the US Constitution affords any protection for them.

1. So are you saying that a right isn't protected if it is not enumerated in the Constitution, but is protected if it is enumerated?

Because I don't think you are, which does mean your disagreement isn't about whether or not the rights are enumerated -- which was the point.

2. Are you seriously taking the position that unless a right is universally recognized and upheld for every member of a society under all conditions it doesn't count as a right for anyone under any conditions?

You are you just complaining that the rights I cited have not been as broadly and universally recognized as they should be. In that case, we are in complete agreement. But the solution isn't to claim they are not rights, but rather to argue that they ARE rights and should be recognized for all.

You make a good point, but I am somehow not comforted by the idea that McCain knows he is lying in a fundamental way about the Constitution but feels it advantageous to do so.

But you are correct that the fact that what McCain said is idiotic does not necessarily mean he is an idiot. He can simply be evil.

Is pandering to a large voting base evil? If McCain doesn't do it, then somebody else will. Their all just sluts for votes imo, except Ron Paul. He is the only politician who doesn't lie. In fact, one time Ron Paul said that he would chop down a Cherry tree, and he did.

Is pandering to a large voting base evil? If McCain doesn't do it, then somebody else will. Their all just sluts for votes imo, except Ron Paul. He is the only politician who doesn't lie. In fact, one time Ron Paul said that he would chop down a Cherry tree, and he did.

1. Deliberately lying about a fundamental principle of our Constitution is pretty bad I think.

2. Perhaps you are unaware, but Ron Paul is worse than McCain on this issue. Paul claims the Constitution is "replete" with references to God -- when in fact it is purposefully devoid of any such reference. Paul openly argues that there should be no such thing as separation of Church and State:

Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view. The justification is always that someone, somewhere, might possibly be offended or feel uncomfortable living in the midst of a largely Christian society, so all must yield to the fragile sensibilities of the few. The ultimate goal of the anti-religious elites is to transform America into a completely secular nation, a nation that is legally and culturally biased against Christianity.

***

The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.
link (http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2003/tst122903.htm)

Many people have been or continue to be denied some or all of those "rights". I take it for granted that this will continue to be the case.

I always find this argument to be amusing.

Please, feel free to cite any and all examples where specific rights have been actually curtailed (those rights inherent in the Constitution)

My feeling is, if they were, the "ebil liberal media" would be all over such examples...

I always find this argument to be amusing.

Please, feel free to cite any and all examples where specific rights have been actually curtailed (those rights inherent in the Constitution)

My feeling is, if they were, the "ebil liberal media" would be all over such examples...

Um. Tmutarakhan already gave examples. One is that gays are denied the right to marry in most states. That is a denial of a fundamental constitutional right.

And before you say "no the right to marry isn't a right" read Loving v. Virginia (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=388&invol=1), 388 U.S. 1 (1967) ("The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man...'") and my earlier citation to Washington v. Glucksberg (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=96-110), 521 U.S. 702 (1997):

The Due Process Clause guarantees more than fair process, and the "liberty" it protects includes more than the absence of physical restraint. Collins v. Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115, 125 (1992) (Due Process Clause "protects individual liberty against `certain government actions regardless of the fairness of the procedures used to implement them' ") (quoting Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 331 (1986)). The Clause also provides heightened protection against government interference with certain fundamental rights and liberty interests. Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 301 -302 (1993); Casey, 505 U.S., at 851 . In a long line of cases, we have held that, in addition to the specific freedoms protected by the Bill of Rights, the "liberty" specially protected by the Due Process Clause includes the rights to marry, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) ...

Is pandering to a large voting base evil? If McCain doesn't do it, then somebody else will. Their all just sluts for votes imo, except Ron Paul. He is the only politician who doesn't lie. In fact, one time Ron Paul said that he would chop down a Cherry tree, and he did.

True, he's open and honest about being a bigot.

here's my message to John McCain::upyours: anyway, he's just doing this so that the religious radicals aka "evangelicals" will vote for him instead of his even worse (hard to imagine, isn't it:D) counterpart Huckabee. the 2 are both religous wackos (and in McCain's case, a war hawk) that want to put the Family Research Council in charge of everything. THANK YOU for putting this out there.

Is pandering to a large voting base evil? If McCain doesn't do it, then somebody else will. Their all just sluts for votes imo

Thats the drug dealer arguement. "If I dont sell the kids crack someone else will." Does that make it any less wrong?

except Ron Paul. He is the only politician who doesn't lie. In fact, one time Ron Paul said that he would chop down a Cherry tree, and he did.

Well, he claims now hes not a racist. Thats a lie.

That depends. Are we being honest enough to read the REST of the quote, which puts this in some context?

"But I say that in the broadest sense. The lady that holds her lamp beside the golden door doesn't say, “I only welcome Christians.” We welcome the poor, the tired, the huddled masses. But when they come here they know that they are in a nation founded on Christian principles. "

Well now. Did the Constitution establish the nation? yes. Was that nation thus established largely of the Christian persuasion? yes. Oh well then.

Are you really going to claim that the full quote (not to mention the other quote I had) exonerates McCain?

The Constitution did NOT establish the United States of America a Christian nation. That is simply false.

As for McCain saying it is still OK for non-Christians to live here, well that is might big of him. :rolleyes::headbang:

Come on - you can read can't you - what is being complained about is that John McCain is saying things about the Constitution that are simply, and quite clearly untrue.

"The Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation."

Did it?

That depends. Are we being honest enough to read the REST of the quote, which puts this in some context?

"But I say that in the broadest sense. The lady that holds her lamp beside the golden door doesn't say, “I only welcome Christians.” We welcome the poor, the tired, the huddled masses. But when they come here they know that they are in a nation founded on Christian principles. "

Well now. Did the Constitution establish the nation? yes. Was that nation thus established largely of the Christian persuasion? yes. Oh well then.

True, he's open and honest about being a bigot.

Not really.

When those publications were found; he said he didn't know about them and that somebody else wrote them.

Somebody then found an article where he was defending them a year or two after they were published....

Well now. Did the Constitution establish the nation? yes. Was that nation thus established largely of the Christian persuasion? yes. Oh well then.

Majority of a Christian persuasion != founded on Christian principles. If I found a book club based around the interpretation of literature and five of the six people in it are Christian, that does not make my book club "founded on Christian principles.

Was that nation thus established largely of the Christian persuasion?
No. Not even remotely.

Not really.

When those publications were found; he said he didn't know about them and that somebody else wrote them.

Somebody then found an article where he was defending them a year or two after they were published....

I was being sarcastic, should have included a smiley.

1. So are you saying that a right isn't protected if it is not enumerated in the Constitution, but is protected if it is enumerated?
A right may or may not be protected, whether the constitution is explicit about it or not, depending on whether you get an asshole judge: but, if the right is not enumerated, the chance of its being protected is considerably less, and it certainly cannot be "taken for granted" as you claimed.
2. Are you seriously taking the position that unless a right is universally recognized and upheld for every member of a society under all conditions it doesn't count as a right for anyone under any conditions?
WTF??? Your position was that we can "take for granted" such "rights" as custody of our children, to take a very non-controversial case of a so-called "right" which many, many people do not get.
But the solution isn't to claim they are not rights, but rather to argue that they ARE rights and should be recognized for all.
You were claiming that they already *are* protected by our constitution. If I would argue that they ARE rights, that would be on abstract moral grounds, nothing to do with "the constitution".
Um. Tmutarakhan already gave examples. One is that gays are denied the right to marry in most states. That is a denial of a fundamental constitutional right.
And before you say "no the right to marry isn't a right" read Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) ("The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man...'")
The court may have SAID that once, but obviously didn't MEAN it, not really. This is precisely what I mean when I say that if a right is "unenumerated", it is haphazardly up to how a particular court feels on a particular day whether it will be protected or not, and it was very wrong to say that anybody should "take it for granted".
That depends. Are we being honest enough to read the REST of the quote, which puts this in some context?

"But I say that in the broadest sense. The lady that holds her lamp beside the golden door doesn't say, “I only welcome Christians.” We welcome the poor, the tired, the huddled masses. But when they come here they know that they are in a nation founded on Christian principles. "
They most certainly do not! Many immigrants would not be coming here if this was a nation founded on "Christian principles".

For those Christians that want to take the constitution and turn it into toilet paper for their religion, I've taken a cue from their own rhetoric and started referring to them as Christo-Fascists. :D

After all, according to the U.S. Military's own dictionary:

fascism

n. 1. an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.

2. (in general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice.

That sounds like a pretty damn accurate summation of how evangelicals want to run the country.

A right may or may not be protected, whether the constitution is explicit about it or not, depending on whether you get an asshole judge: but, if the right is not enumerated, the chance of its being protected is considerably less, and it certainly cannot be "taken for granted" as you claimed.

WTF??? Your position was that we can "take for granted" such "rights" as custody of our children, to take a very non-controversial case of a so-called "right" which many, many people do not get.

You were claiming that they already *are* protected by our constitution. If I would argue that they ARE rights, that would be on abstract moral grounds, nothing to do with "the constitution".

The court may have SAID that once, but obviously didn't MEAN it, not really. This is precisely what I mean when I say that if a right is "unenumerated", it is haphazardly up to how a particular court feels on a particular day whether it will be protected or not, and it was very wrong to say that anybody should "take it for granted".

*sigh*

1. So, I should have been more careful in my original wording. Of the things I listed at least three things are true: (1) they are not enumerated rights, (2) they are nonetheless rights that the Supreme Court has held are protected by the Constitution in at least one case, and (3) most Americans take it for granted that they have such rights, even though they aren't enumerated in the Constitution. I meant nothing more or less. If you are going to argue any of these three aren't true for any specific right, please say so explicitly.

2. Yes, parents generally have a right to custody of their own children. That right is not absolute, nor does it necessarily mean one has rights to one's children in a dispute between parents. Other than that, I'm not sure what you are referring to in claiming this is not a right.

3. The Court has not addressed the issue of same-sex marriage, so it is rather premature to claim it did not mean what it said in Loving merely because of that issue. The point is that Loving established a precedent which should also apply to same-sex marriage.

4. I maintain the rights I mentioned -- including the right to marry -- ARE protected by the Constitution. Namely, the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment (with a nod to the Ninth Amendment). I'm not sure why you would insist they are not. Even before Loving, for example, I would have said the right to marry is a fundamental constitutional right and that anti-miscegenation laws (like anti-same-sex marriage laws) are unconstitutional.

5. To the extent you are arguing the rights I mentioned are subject to the whims of a judge on a specific day, the same can be said for enumerated rights.

*sigh*

1. So, I should have been more careful in my original wording. Of the things I listed at least three things are true: (1) they are not enumerated rights, (2) they are nonetheless rights that the Supreme Court has held are protected by the Constitution in at least one case, and (3) most Americans take it for granted that they have such rights, even though they aren't enumerated in the Constitution. I meant nothing more or less. If you are going to argue any of these three aren't true for any specific right, please say so explicitly.
The bolded sentence is what I considered to be absurdly false.
2. Yes, parents generally have a right to custody of their own children. That right is not absolute
That is to say, you would be an idiot to "take it for granted".
3. The Court has not addressed the issue of same-sex marriage, so it is rather premature to claim it did not mean what it said in Loving merely because of that issue. The point is that Loving established a precedent which should also apply to same-sex marriage.
You know better.
To the extent you are arguing the rights I mentioned are subject to the whims of a judge on a specific day, the same can be said for enumerated rights.
Not NEARLY to the same extent. When there is no specific text to refer to, the courts can do any kind of fancy-dancing they please in whatever case.

We are traveling further and further from the topic, but I welcome this exchange. ;)

The bolded sentence is what I considered to be absurdly false.

And I dispute that. Most Americans think they have such rights. Are you really saying most Americans don't think they have a right to travel, to marry, to have children, etc. On what do you base this argument?

Some Americans may think they do not have one or more of these rights or may think that other Americans don't have such rights, but those are different propositions.

That is to say, you would be an idiot to "take it for granted".

The right to free speech is not absolute. Would one be an idiot to think it is a protected right?

You know better.

I do? Do you? Based on what exactly?

Not NEARLY to the same extent. When there is no specific text to refer to, the courts can do any kind of fancy-dancing they please in whatever case.

You are being deliberately vauge when you say "courts." SCOTUS has flexibility but must at least justify a departure from precedent. Any other court has to listen to SCOTUS's decrees.

That there are unenumerated rights is a well-founded proposition. As is the proposition that the things I mentioned are such rights.

I would argue, TCT, merely from the point of being nitpicky, that rights under the 5th and 14th are not "unenumerated".

The 14th amendment gives us the right to due process and equal protection. The 5th amendment allows us to be secure in our "life liberty and property".

The rights of due process, equal protection, and the liberty interest are therefore, technically, not "unenumerated". They're quite clearly enumerated, as the rights of due process, equal protection, and liberty.

Now what DEFINES due process, equal protection, and liberty is up for debate. However to say that for example the right to marry is "unenumerated" I think is false. It is enumerated, as a right to liberty, equal protection, and due process, which are clearly enumerated rights.

In that sense there is no real "unenumerated right to marry" any more so than there is an "unenumerated right to an abortion". There ARE however, the very clearly enumerated rights of liberty, equal protection, and due process. Which, include among them, the concept of marriage, and bodily autonomy.

/nitpick

Is pandering to a large voting base evil? If McCain doesn't do it, then somebody else will. Their all just sluts for votes imo, except Ron Paul. He is the only politician who doesn't lie. In fact, one time Ron Paul said that he would chop down a Cherry tree, and he did.

ron paul lies, panders, and prevaricates just the same as any politician. he just SEEMS more honest because the truths he chooses to tell are so much more startlingly direct and "non-republican" than any other candidates that it makes him seem more honest.

I was being sarcastic, should have included a smiley.

On the mend from the bad bug running around. It still probably wouldn't have helped. ;)

I think McCain understands the Constitution well, and is telling us his true interpretation of it. The spirit of the document was based upon the thought of a profoundly Christian group of men (there was a strong influence of theism as well), the work of several Christian philosophers of Christian Europe, and was the descendant of the Christian British Empires laws going back all the way to the Magna Carta (which, Britan being Catholic at the time, then extends the timeline back to the time of Jesus). It was written as the charter for a nation almost exclusively populated by Christians. The central themes are tolerance, equality and freedom. I think it would be a misinterpretation of the document if we pronounced it to be completely secularly influenced. What makes it an enduring piece of genius is the fact that it encourages the very Christian idea of free choice by not creating a state religion out of Christianity.

We are traveling further and further from the topic, but I welcome this exchange. ;)

And I dispute that. Most Americans think they have such rights. Are you really saying most Americans don't think they have a right to travel, to marry, to have children, etc. On what do you base this argument?
We are somewhat talking at cross purposes. In Oliver Wendell Holmes' terminology, you are talking about "legal idealism" (what you think the law ought to do) while I am talking "legal realism" (what I think the law does in fact).
Most Americans surely expect that the government isn't likely to interfere with their families, and surely would fight like hell against the government interfering, but I doubt that very many are under the delusion that the government can't or that it is safe to take it for granted that the government never would.
Think about cases like 17-year-old autistic boy kidnapped (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=550042). You think Americans take it for granted that such things can never happen, or that the courts will automatically rule in the parents' favor if the matter is brought to their attention? The best that can be said is that parental custody of children is *ordinarily* left undisturbed, not that there is any *fundamental right* here. Or perhaps by "fundamental" you again have some meaning that I do not catch, so that we are at cross-purposes.
I do? Do you? Based on what exactly?
A head-count on the Supreme Court. You think Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito would under any circumstances find a "right" to same-sex marriage? Among the other five, maybe it would not be totally absurd to imagine one or two of them voting such a way, but: you think every single one of them would?
You are being deliberately vauge when you say "courts." SCOTUS has flexibility but must at least justify a departure from precedent.
MUST???

What makes it an enduring piece of genius is the fact that it encourages the very Christian idea of free choice by not creating a state religion out of Christianity.
CHRISTIAN idea??? The Christian idea of government was that man is innately sinful, and cannot be trusted with choices; therefore, God anoints kings to control us, and if the kings, as may often happen, are sinful also, this too we have a duty to endure, as a chastisement from God.
The notion that God created a self-sufficient world, in which man has sufficient reasoning ability to govern himself without divine impositions, was a radical rejection of this past. It is a very "deist" and "Masonic" idea; we cannot see it now for the sharp break that it was understood to be at the time.

We are somewhat talking at cross purposes. In Oliver Wendell Holmes' terminology, you are talking about "legal idealism" (what you think the law ought to do) while I am talking "legal realism" (what I think the law does in fact).

We are talking at cross purposes, but I don't agree the disagreement is simply a question of legal idealism versus legal realism. Nor do I agree with your characterization of how each of us would stand if that were the dispute.

I am saying that certain rights are fundamental rights that the Supreme Court has recognized as such. Not absolute rights -- they're aren't any absolute constitutional rights -- but fundamental rights.

You seem to be saying that so long as some aspect of those rights can theoretically be denied to anyone, they aren't a right.

It isn't my position that is unrealistic.

Most Americans surely expect that the government isn't likely to interfere with their families, and surely would fight like hell against the government interfering, but I doubt that very many are under the delusion that the government can't or that it is safe to take it for granted that the government never would.
Think about cases like 17-year-old autistic boy kidnapped (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=550042). You think Americans take it for granted that such things can never happen, or that the courts will automatically rule in the parents' favor if the matter is brought to their attention? The best that can be said is that parental custody of children is *ordinarily* left undisturbed, not that there is any *fundamental right* here.

Look, are you aware of the Supreme Court's precedent concerning fundamental rights (both specifically enumerated and those that are part of liberty) and strict scutiny?

That something is a right for Americans does not mean that it can never be threatened by the government. To the contrary, our rights are threatened all the time. Whether such a threat violates the right or is a legitimate exercise of state power depends on whether the government action can withstand strict scutiny -- i.e., is it narrowly tailored and required by a compelling government interest.

And, yes, SCOTUS has recognized that parental custody of children is a fundamental right. That is a realist definitions of fundamental right -- a right recognized by the courts as a fundamental right is a fundamental right.

Or perhaps by "fundamental" you again have some meaning that I do not catch, so that we are at cross-purposes.

You appear to be hung up on my phrasing "taken for granted." All I meant by that is that the average American would think he/she has such a right. The rights I layed out are ones that most people don't even think about as rights, because they are so fundamental. Although there are those that are denied such rights, the average American would be more than a bit shocked by a law that denies them the right to travel, to vote, whether to have children, etc. I certainly think they would expect such rights to be protected from government encroachment.

That the case of the "kidnapped" autistic child raises such ire only serves to prove my point that we generally assume the government has to have a narrowly tailored compelling interest in order to take children away from their parents -- in other words, parents generally have a right to custody of their children.

A head-count on the Supreme Court. You think Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito would under any circumstances find a "right" to same-sex marriage? Among the other five, maybe it would not be totally absurd to imagine one or two of them voting such a way, but: you think every single one of them would?

So your "realist" perspective is that, even though SCOTUS has declared something a fundamental right, it isn't a fundamental right unless one can predict with ease that a majority of the Supreme Court would grant that right in all cases?

I'm not sure how the Court would come out on the issue. I know how it should rule, because marriage is (as the Court has said) a fundamental right and denial of that right on the grounds of gender alone is unconstitutional.

MUST???

As much as any court MUST do anything. If you are going to treat courts as creatures of arbitrariness and capriciousness, then I guess you are right that we have no rights we can feel are secure. But that is hardly legal realism.

I think McCain understands the Constitution well, and is telling us his true interpretation of it. The spirit of the document was based upon the thought of a profoundly Christian group of men (there was a strong influence of theism as well), the work of several Christian philosophers of Christian Europe, and was the descendant of the Christian British Empires laws going back all the way to the Magna Carta (which, Britan being Catholic at the time, then extends the timeline back to the time of Jesus). It was written as the charter for a nation almost exclusively populated by Christians. The central themes are tolerance, equality and freedom. I think it would be a misinterpretation of the document if we pronounced it to be completely secularly influenced. What makes it an enduring piece of genius is the fact that it encourages the very Christian idea of free choice by not creating a state religion out of Christianity.

The Framers very clearly created a separation of Church and State and established a wholly secular Republic. To say, as McCain did, that the Constitution established the USA as a Christian Nation is more than simply false, it is an absolute misconstruction of what our nation was founded on.

As for the rest of your argument, I've already provided several links which deal with these arguments. I'll repeat some of them: A Nation of Christians Is Not a Christian Nation (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/07/opinion/07meacham.html); Is America A 'Christian Nation'? (http://www.au.org/site/PageServer?pagename=resources_brochure_christiannation);The Christian Nation Myth (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/myth.html)

There was nothing "profoundly Christian" about the Framers or what they did.

As for you argument about English common law, here is a thorough rebuttal from one of my earlier links (Little-Known U.S. Document Signed by President Adams Proclaims America's Government Is Secular (http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html)):

Here, many Christians believe that common law came from Christian foundations and therefore the Constitution derives from it. They use various quotes from Supreme Court Justices proclaiming that Christianity came as part of the laws of England, and therefore from its common law heritage.

But one of our principle Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson, elaborated about the history of common law in his letter to Thomas Cooper on February 10, 1814:

"For we know that the common law is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement in England, and altered from time to time by proper legislative authority from that time to the date of Magna Charta, which terminates the period of the common law. . . This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century; the conversion of the first christian king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686. Here then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it.

". . . if any one chooses to build a doctrine on any law of that period, supposed to have been lost, it is incumbent on him to prove it to have existed, and what were its contents. These were so far alterations of the common law, and became themselves a part of it. But none of these adopt Christianity as a part of the common law. If, therefore, from the settlement of the Saxons to the introduction of Christianity among them, that system of religion could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet Christians, and if, having their laws from that period to the close of the common law, we are all able to find among them no such act of adoption, we may safely affirm (though contradicted by all the judges and writers on earth) that Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."

In the same letter, Jefferson examined how the error spread about Christianity and common law. Jefferson realized that a misinterpretation had occurred with a Latin term by Prisot, "*ancien scripture*," in reference to common law history. The term meant "ancient scripture" but people had incorrectly interpreted it to mean "Holy Scripture," thus spreading the myth that common law came from the Bible. Jefferson writes:

"And Blackstone repeats, in the words of Sir Matthew Hale, that 'Christianity is part of the laws of England,' citing Ventris and Strange ubi surpa. 4. Blackst. 59. Lord Mansfield qualifies it a little by saying that 'The essential principles of revealed religion are part of the common law." In the case of the Chamberlain of London v. Evans, 1767. But he cites no authority, and leaves us at our peril to find out what, in the opinion of the judge, and according to the measure of his foot or his faith, are those essential principles of revealed religion obligatory on us as a part of the common law."

Thus we find this string of authorities, when examined to the beginning, all hanging on the same hook, a perverted expression of Priscot's, or on one another, or nobody."
The Encyclopedia Britannica, also describes the Saxon origin and adds: "The nature of the new common law was at first much influenced by the principles of Roman law, but later it developed more and more along independent lines." Also prominent among the characteristics that derived out of common law include the institution of the jury, and the right to speedy trial.

I would argue, TCT, merely from the point of being nitpicky, that rights under the 5th and 14th are not "unenumerated".

The 14th amendment gives us the right to due process and equal protection. The 5th amendment allows us to be secure in our "life liberty and property".

The rights of due process, equal protection, and the liberty interest are therefore, technically, not "unenumerated". They're quite clearly enumerated, as the rights of due process, equal protection, and liberty.

Now what DEFINES due process, equal protection, and liberty is up for debate. However to say that for example the right to marry is "unenumerated" I think is false. It is enumerated, as a right to liberty, equal protection, and due process, which are clearly enumerated rights.

In that sense there is no real "unenumerated right to marry" any more so than there is an "unenumerated right to an abortion". There ARE however, the very clearly enumerated rights of liberty, equal protection, and due process. Which, include among them, the concept of marriage, and bodily autonomy.

/nitpick

Fair enough, but how do you describe those rights that are part of liberty et al but are not other expressly designated in the Constitution?

It seems to me "unemerated fundamental rights" correctly labels such rights. It does not mean those rights are any less rights than those that are specifically enumerated, it just means those rights are not individually spelled out in the Constitution, seperate from liberty et al.

You seem to be saying that so long as some aspect of those rights can theoretically be denied to anyone, they aren't a right.
We are talking about rights which are actually, not theoretically, denied to a lot of people.
Look, are you aware of the Supreme Court's precedent concerning fundamental rights (both specifically enumerated and those that are part of liberty) and strict scutiny?
I used to practice law. I burned my license 15 years ago, having learned what courts say about "rights" and what they actually do often bear little resemblance to each other.
And, yes, SCOTUS has recognized that parental custody of children is a fundamental right. That is a realist definitions of fundamental right -- a right recognized by the courts as a fundamental right is a fundamental right.
No, a "realist" definition does not look to whether courts use such a phrase as "fundamental right", but whether in fact they uphold such rights.
You appear to be hung up on my phrasing "taken for granted."
Yes, it struck me as particularly wrong-headed.
All I meant by that is that the average American would think he/she has such a right.
I do not think the average American is under any illusions about how often rights on paper turn out not to mean much once the government moves against you.
The rights I layed out are ones that most people don't even think about as rights, because they are so fundamental. Although there are those that are denied such rights, the average American would be more than a bit shocked by a law that denies them the right to travel, to vote, whether to have children, etc. I certainly think they would expect such rights to be protected from government encroachment.
When such things come up, Americans certainly bitch about them, but I would hardly say that they are surprised, let alone "shocked", or that they would have expected anything different.
So your "realist" perspective is that, even though SCOTUS has declared something a fundamental right, it isn't a fundamental right unless one can predict with ease that a majority of the Supreme Court would grant that right in all cases?
I never said anything about "all" cases: that's your particular strawman. What I am saying is that when it comes to "unenumerated" rights, it is anybody's guess in *which* cases a court would or would not uphold it. Courts can rule strangely, of course, in any kind of case, but where the "right" is not clearly founded in the text, capriciousness is to be expected.
I'm not sure how the Court would come out on the issue.
Then I think you are very naive. That's not even a close call, really.
I know how it should rule, because marriage is (as the Court has said) a fundamental right and denial of that right on the grounds of gender alone is unconstitutional.
Thank you. But that's just "idealism". I certainly don't expect to live long enough to see such a viewpoint prevail.
As much as any court MUST do anything.
We're not talking about "any" court. The extent to which the Supreme Court MUST do anything is: not at all; who's going to overrule them?
If you are going to treat courts as creatures of arbitrariness and capriciousness, then I guess you are right that we have no rights we can feel are secure. But that is hardly legal realism.
What is your experience with the legal system?

What is your experience with the legal system?

I've been a lawyer for about 10 years. I externed with one federal appellate judge and clerked with another. I've worked in various areas of litigation, including criminal defense and civil rights cases, but my primary practice was in patent litigation.

I'm not saying any of this to brag or say that my opinion is worth more than anyone else's. Merely answering your question. (And I know since you specified you had a law license and asked the question, you wouldn't think my answer to be some kind of argument from authority.) :)

So-called "moderate" John McCain is not moderate when it comes to Christianity and the Constitution.

There is nothing moderate about a man that would seek to abolish abortion, have schools lead prayers, and teach creationism. (And appoint judges that agree with this agenda).

But that pales compared to McCain's ignorance and prejudice concerning basic religious freedom and the U.S. Constitution.

Some months ago, Senator McCain told beliefnet in an interview (http://www.beliefnet.com/story/220/story_22001_1.html):

"[T]he Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation."

Not only is this statement incredibly bigotted, it is fundamentally wrong. The U.S. Constitution (http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/constitution/) is purposefully devoid of any reference to Christianity. Not only does the Constitution NOT establish a Christian nation, but it expressly does the opposite: the First Amendment (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/) forbids any "law respecting an establishment of religion."

McCain also said:

"I think the number one issue people should make [in the] selection of the President of the United States is, 'Will this person carry on in the Judeo Christian principled tradition that has made this nation the greatest experiment in the history of mankind?'"

Article VI (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article06/) of the Constitution actually specifies:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. [emphasis added]

McCain fundamentally misunderstands both the language and the spirit of the U.S. Constitution and, accordingly, is not fit to lead this country.


Another amazing Cat thread.

Everybody knows that McCain's true religion is power and that he doesn't believe or care about any of this and just says it to enhance his reputation with the Christian voters. Everybody knows the media would never call him on it, when the majority of viewers would agree with the literal sentiment. But you're point that all of this is rhetorically unacceptable is also amiss. Suppose you were hired by the McCain campaign to be an envoy to the Secularists Society, what would you come up with to defend John with?

Twer it me, I would say that by "Christian Nation", John was talking about the USA as having the moral and ethical outlook of a nation that was populated by Christians including a belief in freedom of the individual, the rule of law, justice, and the inner goodness and equality of man, etc., not that the USA was, is, or should be populated by only religious Christians. Also "Judeo Christian tradition" doesn't imply a religion at all. It implies essentially the same thing as Christian Nation, a values system.

Contrived spin? Maybe, but perfectly defendable spin, and that's all that is needed to thwart your point.

I've been a lawyer for about 10 years. I externed with one federal appellate judge and clerked with another. I've worked in various areas of litigation, including criminal defense and civil rights cases, but my primary practice was in patent litigation.

I'm not saying any of this to brag or say that my opinion is worth more than anyone else's. Merely answering your question. (And I know since you specified you had a law license and asked the question, you wouldn't think my answer to be some kind of argument from authority.) :)
I was taking it for granted you were an attorney; I was principally interested in how long you'd been at it, and what kinds of interactions you've had with the courts, obviously nothing as embittering as my experience was.

Fair enough, but how do you describe those rights that are part of liberty et al but are not other expressly designated in the Constitution?


As not rights. Now that might sound odd but let me explain. I am of the belief that, legally, there is no such thing as many of the rights you have mentioned, in a legal sense. There's no legal right to marriage. No legal right to abortion. No legal right to many of the things you articulated.

Now, before you put my head on a pike for that, what I do believe in is a right to liberty, a right to due process, a right to equal protection. The problem is, what does a right to liberty MEAN? It means, to me, in the words of the great cardozo, that the right to liberty, due process, equal protection protects those things "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty"

There might be no clearly articulated right to do any of those things you mentioned. But there's a right to liberty, and that menas I have the right to do those things bound by the concept of liberty. Which includes get married, have an abortion, move out of state, and many of those things.

From a technical nitpicking sense, if you have something like "a right to an abortion" it must either be an enumerated right, clearly spelled out, or an unenumerated right still protected by the 9th amendment. I don't really care for relying on the 9th amendment, it seems to me a legal shell game of "find the right". I prefer to simply rely on our rights to liberty, due process, and equal protection.

I would argue, TCT, merely from the point of being nitpicky, that rights under the 5th and 14th are not "unenumerated".

The 14th amendment gives us the right to due process and equal protection. The 5th amendment allows us to be secure in our "life liberty and property".

Um...I thought the 4th amendment allowed us to be secured in our "life, liberty, and property?

“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.

Um...I thought the 4th amendment allowed us to be secured in our "life, liberty, and property?

No. Neo Art is correctly referring to the Due Process Clauses of the 5th and 14th Amendments (emphasis added):

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 offence 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.

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

No. Neo Art is correctly referring to the Due Process Clauses of the 5th and 14th Amendments (emphasis added):

Ah..ok. Its funny how we have three amendments that say the samething IMO.

Ah..ok. Its funny how we have three amendments that say the samething IMO.

....they don't. The 4th and 5th amendments are radically different and accomplish radically different things.

The 5th and 14th amendments are quite similar in their scope with the exception that the 5th amendment has no application to the states, whereas the 14th, by definition, does.

....they don't. The 4th and 5th amendments are radically different and accomplish radically different things.

The 5th and 14th amendments are quite similar in their scope with the exception that the 5th amendment has no application to the states, whereas the 14th, by definition, does.

KK Thanks :)