The only long term solution to all these divisive social issues — abortion, gay marriage, etc. — is to allow different states and communities to set their own laws, definitions, requirements. Both the extreme Left and extreme Right need to give a little. Let Red States act like Red States and Blue States act like Blue States.

I think the Republicans are, for the most part, ready to do that right now, but the Left wants to force through its whole social agenda with court rulings that completely bypass voters and their elected representatives. But this is a dangerous game, and is already eroding the basic democratic institutions of our country. But the Left, as far as I can see, would take away each and every issue away from voters and the elected representatives, and hand it to unelected judges, as long as it helps them push through their agenda.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39246126/ns/us_news/

“The state of Montan’s RNC party adopted an official platform in June that keeps a long-held position in support of making homosexual acts illegal, a policy adopted after the Montana Supreme Court struck down such laws in 1997.”

Say what you want about Republicans, but they are still the party of hate and intolerance.

Fox News: We proudly pander to Teabaggers said:
Say what you want about Republicans, but they are still the party of hate and intolerance.

You are, to put it mildly, a fucking idiot. And I don’t hate you, and I’m not intolerant of you either, I just think you’re a fucking idiot.

America’s stupidest Senator, for another few months at least.

felixw said:
The only long term solution to all these divisive social issues — abortion, gay marriage, etc. — is to allow different states and communities to set their own laws, definitions, requirements.

I think you are right on the money with that statement, Felix.

felixw said:
The only long term solution to all these divisive social issues — abortion, gay marriage, etc. — is to allow different states and communities to set their own laws, definitions, requirements. Both the extreme Left and extreme Right need to give a little. Let Red States act like Red States and Blue States act like Blue States. I think the Republicans are, for the most part, ready to do that right now, but the Left wants to force through its whole social agenda with court rulings that completely bypass voters and their elected representatives. But this is a dangerous game, and is already eroding the basic democratic institutions of our country. But the Left, as far as I can see, would take away each and every issue away from voters and the elected representatives, and hand it to unelected judges, as long as it helps them push through their agenda.

One of the most socially divisive issue of the 20th century was segregation. If we went by your thinking, Felixw, then segregation policies would be left to the states. And Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, etc., would have separate but equal schools, whites only restaurants, and the White Citizens Council would be in charge of social policy. Would you really want that?

Patrick Henry said:
I think you are right on the money with that statement, Felix.

Patrick, I cannot believe you are saying that. Would you really want segregation to be legal in some states? Segregation, after all, was a social issue, just as gay rights is. The only thing that saved the South from itself was the Federal Government intervening during the Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson years.

timzank said:
You are, to put it mildly, a fucking idiot. And I don’t hate you, and I’m not intolerant of you either, I just think you’re a fucking idiot.

Way to show your tolerance, dude.

Question: When was the last/first GAY PREGNANCY?

alamo2 said:
One of the most socially divisive issue of the 20th century was segregation. If we went by your thinking, Felixw, then segregation policies would be left to the states. And Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, etc., would have separate but equal schools, whites only restaurants, and the White Citizens Council would be in charge of social policy. Would you really want that?

Thanks for your comments. You remind me of how much the Democrats fought against segregation for all those decades. However, your analogy is completely off base, since the oppression of blacks in the South was addressed the proper way, with a constitutional amendment voted for and approved by the states. If people want to change the constitution to put a the right to abortion or gay marriage, they are free to try to get the votes. But if they can’t get those votes, they should follow the constitution as written and let the states decide.

I know allowing people to decide how to live their lives, free of the federal government, is painful for liberals to consider. But, mark my words, we will inevitably return to the sane, reasonable approach that our nation’s founders outlined in the Constitution — and have less divisive squabbling as a result.

timzank said:
You are, to put it mildly, a fucking idiot. And I don’t hate you, and I’m not intolerant of you either, I just think you’re a fucking idiot.

The Left always has the most well considered and eloquent responses to the political issues of the day. I mean, who wouldn’t be persuaded by Timzank’s thoughtful and reasoned position?

I think he’s from the Right in
re Fox News: We proudly pander to Teabaggers

felixw said:
Thanks for your comments. You remind me of how much the Democrats fought against segregation for all those decades. However, your analogy is completely off base, since the oppression of blacks in the South was addressed the proper way, with a constitutional amendment voted for and approved by the states. If people want to change the constitution to put a the right to abortion or gay marriage, they are free to try to get the votes. But if they can’t get those votes, they should follow the constitution as written and let the states decide. I know allowing people to decide how to live their lives, free of the federal government, is painful for liberals to consider. But, mark my words, we will inevitably return to the sane, reasonable approach that our nation’s founders outlined in the Constitution — and have less divisive squabbling as a result.

Actually, my analogy is not off base at all. The Supreme Court decided in Brown v. Board of Education that separate but equal was unconstitutional, thus negating the bigoted practice in Southern States of providing white only schools and “colored” only schools — which were totally unequal. And Ike had to sent in the troops to Little Rock to stop the racists from attacking the black children from integrating a school. And JFK had to send in troops to Alabama and Mississippi, to stop the hoards from attacking those who tried to integrate. In spite of all that, Mississippians killed and wounded people in the battle in Oxford, MS. And whether or not Democrats were racists (who actually went over to the Republican party after the Civil Rights legislation) is beside the point. The point is: Had the Federal Government not become involved, the states would have ensured that segregation continued. The Supreme Court even had to admonish the Souther states that the way they educated their children was morally, ethically and legally wrong.

felixw said:
The Left always has the most well considered and eloquent responses to the political issues of the day. I mean, who wouldn’t be persuaded by Timzank’s thoughtful and reasoned position?

Actually, Timzank is a right winger. His eloquent use of the F-word comes from the right, not the left.

felixW,

While I always knew you were a hack but I didn’t realize you were a complete moron too.

timzank has been posting here for over a year on a regular basis. If you don’t know his ideological leanings at this point, then you are either not reading his comments are you are a complete moron. And considering you live in this section, then I have to conclude it is the later.

By the way Felixw,

I take no offense to being calling a fucking idiot. That does not cross the line of decency for me, but i will show plenty from your conservative soulmates that do cross the line if you like.

alamo2 said:
Actually, Timzank is a right winger. His eloquent use of the F-word comes from the right, not the left.

How could some moron give this a thumbs down??????? The clown, timzank, is a rightist. That is a fact. And he did make use of the F-word. So how could some moron give this a thumbs down when I simply pointed out that the person who thought timzank was a leftie was wrong?????

alamo2 said:
How could some moron give this a thumbs down??????? The clown, timzank, is a rightist. That is a fact. And he did make use of the F-word. So how could some moron give this a thumbs down when I simply pointed out that the person who thought timzank was a leftie was wrong?????

not here for discourse – only thumbs for people who agree

“But the Left, as far as I can see, would take away each and every issue away from voters and the elected representatives, and hand it to unelected judges, as long as it helps them push through their agenda.”

————

Hate to break it to you, but these courts with their “unelected judges” have been in the Constitution since day 1. You don’t like the judges? We get to vote for the people that appoint and confirm them.

We have unelected judges precisely to protect against the tyranny of the majority.

See these hard right wing of the Republican have to show that they’re the craziest bunch in the pack or they will get voted out by the teabaggers. I think inside the Republican beltway they are scared that they created a monster and that they can all can get sunk into this black hole. I predict that the Republican party will cannibalize the teabagger movement because they are scared of what it’s turning into.

Well, if he’s worried about abortions then he should support lesbians in the military, duh! It’s not like they’re going to get pregnant and then enjoy a 9 month vacation with Uncle Sam’s dime.

felixw said:
You remind me of how much the Democrats fought against segregation for all those decades. However, your analogy is completely off base

from the avatar of a regular – and I believe the belief of many Tea Partiers.

Libertarianism is thus the combination of liberty (the freedom to live your life in any peaceful way you choose), responsibility (the prohibition against the use of force against others, except in defense), and tolerance (honoring and respecting the peaceful choices of others).

(not including the abortion/life issue) would this not side with gay marriage?

mibwilso said:
“But the Left, as far as I can see, would take away each and every issue away from voters and the elected representatives, and hand it to unelected judges, as long as it helps them push through their agenda.”

or from the “other side of the isle you can replace Left with Right and see it the same way
for instance we could say that an ACTIVIST conservative Judge would read into the Constitution that America was Founded on Man/Woman much like the 7-1 decision in 1896 that upheld the constitutionality of a Louisiana law mandating “equal but separate accommodations for the white and colored races” on railroad trains.

Jim Inhofe has been an embarassment to Oklahoma for quite some time. Sadly, my state keeps voting him back into office.

We need real leaders to solve the real problems of our country. Inhofe is neither a leader nor someone with a vision.

He spends too much time talking about what’s bad or wrong about our country and not enough time working to make things better.

Even worse, he has a gaggle of Republican cohorts bleeting variants of the same message and the sheep of my state and this country keep on listening.

felixw said:
The only long term solution to all these divisive social issues — abortion, gay marriage, etc. — is to allow different states and communities to set their own laws, definitions, requirements. Both the extreme Left and extreme Right need to give a little. Let Red States act like Red States and Blue States act like Blue States.

Do you feel that way about issues that have already been decided? Should slavery, women right to vote, and other civil rights issues be left up to the states?

no-touchy-touchy said:
from the avatar of a regular – and I believe the belief of many Tea Partiers.

Libertarianism is thus the combination of liberty (the freedom to live your life in any peaceful way you choose), responsibility (the prohibition against the use of force against others, except in defense), and tolerance (honoring and respecting the peaceful choices of others).

(not including the abortion/life issue) would this not side with gay marriage?

Now that’s an interesting point. I know several conservatives who support equal rights for all people including our GL population. To them it’s just the common sense of the equal rights principle.

they added federal fudning to the defense bill too? what about cap and trade or company pay caps or CO2 emissions.

This is the problem with the federal level. All kinds of nonsense. They can’t just have a bill that says here is $$$ for defense. It’s sneaky shit to add stuff randomly to legislation. 2k page bills….can’t it be like 100pages so people can read it.

Gonna take a large nutsack to wake people up from the pulpit and not just at rallies.

alamo2 said:
Actually, my analogy is not off base at all. The Supreme Court decided in Brown v. Board of Education that separate but equal was unconstitutional, thus negating the bigoted practice in Southern States of providing white only schools and “colored” only schools — which were totally unequal. And Ike had to sent in the troops to Little Rock to stop the racists from attacking the black children from integrating a school. And JFK had to send in troops to Alabama and Mississippi, to stop the hoards from attacking those who tried to integrate. In spite of all that, Mississippians killed and wounded people in the battle in Oxford, MS. And whether or not Democrats were racists (who actually went over to the Republican party after the Civil Rights legislation) is beside the point. The point is: Had the Federal Government not become involved, the states would have ensured that segregation continued. The Supreme Court even had to admonish the Souther states that the way they educated their children was morally, ethically and legally wrong.

Use your head and think through this for a moment.

Slavery was abolished with the 13th amendment
Equal protection and equal rights and privileges for all citizens guaranteed in the 14th amendment
Voting rights were guaranteed with the 15th amendment
Etc.

This is how things are done under the U.S. Constitution, and the Brown versus the Board of Education decision was made possible only because people followed the process and created these amendments to the Constitution.

But you power hungry progressives don’t want to do this for abortion, gay marriage and the rest of your agenda. And I understand why. You don’t have the votes and can’t get the votes. So you go down a very dangerous path of putting in judges you vote their own political agenda rather than follow the written law. This may allow you, with this kind of power play, to get your whole agenda through without having to worry about the democratic process or the wishes of voters or elected representatives. But you are destroying the political system by deliberately undermining the checks and balances that make our political process fair and honest, and not a tyranny.

It would be much better if both “progressives” and “conservatives” followed the constitution as written and recognized rights not specified in the Constitution as belong to the states, and if the voters want sweeping federal enforcement not currently allowed in the Constitution, then you pass an amendment. This is the way he worked until the progressives started deliberately undermining the system.

Let me quote the tenth amendment in its entirety. It couldn’t be any clearer. It reads:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

If you don’t like that part of the Constitution, you need to change it following the specified legal process. Just trampling on it is a disgrace.

alamo2 said:
One of the most socially divisive issue of the 20th century was segregation. If we went by your thinking, Felixw, then segregation policies would be left to the states. And Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, etc., would have separate but equal schools, whites only restaurants, and the White Citizens Council would be in charge of social policy. Would you really want that?

Judging from the three thumbs down, I can only think that there are three conservatives who want segregation, or have no problem with states voting for segregation.

CosmosDan said:
Do you feel that way about issues that have already been decided? Should slavery, women right to vote, and other civil rights issues be left up to the states?

Dude, you need to read the Constitution some time. These very issues were changes by adding amendments to the Constitution. Exactly what the Left refuses to do nowadays. And exactly what I am advocating should be done with divisive issues in the current day. So you — unwittingly — make my case for me.

The fact that you don’t understand this stuff is scary. it’s basic civics. The left tramples on the Constitution, but doesn’t even have a clue what is in it. Heaven help us!

alamo2 said:
Judging from the three thumbs down, I can only think that there are three conservatives who want segregation, or have no problem with states voting for segregation.

Alamo, go ahead and play the race card. But you look like a total fool doing it. Republicans took the lead in passing the 13th amendment (abolishing slavery), 14th amendment (equal protection) and 15th amendment (voting rights) — against fierce opposition by Democrats — because they realized that the Constitution needed to be changed in ordr to guarantee the rights of black Americans. They didn’t try to pack the court, the ugly, dangerous game you progressives play.

The fact that conservatives nowadays still believe in following the Constitutional processes does make them racists. But the people (like you) who would force through issues with compliant judges who vote their personal opinions and not on the basis of the law are laying the groundwork for tyranny. Read the Constitution some time, instead of trampling on it.

alamo2 said:
Patrick, I cannot believe you are saying that. Would you really want segregation to be legal in some states?

Alamo, do you even understand that the Constitution can be changed by amendment? You wouldn’t ask Patrick Henry such stupid questions if you did. I guess “progressives” think that you change the Constitution by packing the court with compliant, ideological judges who vote on personal whim. Heaven help us!

felixw said:
Alamo, go ahead and play the race card. But you look like a total fool doing it. Republicans took the lead in passing the 13th amendment (abolishing slavery), 14th amendment (equal protection) and 15th amendment (voting rights) — against fierce opposition by Democrats — because they realized that the Constitution needed to be changed in ordr to guarantee the rights of black Americans. They didn’t try to pack the court, the ugly, dangerous game you progressives play. The fact that conservatives nowadays still believe in following the Constitutional processes does make them racists. But the people (like you) who would force through issues with compliant judges who vote their personal opinions and not on the basis of the law are laying the groundwork for tyranny. Read the Constitution some time, instead of trampling on it.

The so-called race card is important here, Felix, even you choose to belittle it. Because if you have states rights, as you so much cherish, then the states can do whatever they damn well please. As I said before, segregation and separate but equal was the so-called law of the land even after the amendments giving blacks equal rights. So the government had to intervene. You choose to ignore historical facts. And as for the comments about who was a Democrat or Republican 50 or 100 years ago, that of course is irrelevant, and has zero to do with your original comments. What matters is: States Rights, as you want in social issues, can be detrimental, as they were in the 1950s and 1960s. I am not trampling on the Constitution (another attack that has nothing to do with this argument). You sir, are trampling on historical truths. So stick to the topic instead of churlish beside the point attacks.

alamo2 said:
If you have states rights, as you so much cherish, then the states can do whatever they damn well please.

You really must read the Constitution. There is a section about amendments. Which are — drum roll here for dramatic effect — the way new powers are assigned to the federal government.

The tenth amendment does not say “states can do what they damn well please.” It specifies that states (and the voters) have all rights not explicitly given to the Federal government. if voters want to assign more rights to Washington D.C., they can pass amendments to do that. This is the way it is done in a democracy. The form of government that assigns powers to unelected officials in order to bypass the voters is known as a tyranny.

Until you figure that out, you really should refrain from commenting on these matters.

felixw said:
Dude, you need to read the Constitution some time. These very issues were changes by adding amendments to the Constitution.

Precisely, Felix. The constitution itself codified unequal treatment for women and blacks specifically. The original document specifically named women for exclusion from voting and most property rights, and specifically named and codified slaves as 3/5 of a human being, and specifically distinguished the difference between slaves and black freedmen. Rights for women and blacks HAD to be added by amendment because they were specifically subtracted by original construction. By contrast, there are no such provisions specifically singling out abortion or homosexuals. There is no constitutional codification of what marriage is or how it should be administered. And in a time when childbirth and childhood life expectancy were both pretty sketchy, the notion of forcing women to bring each and every pregnancy to term would be laughable to the Founders, thus no mention of the rights of the unborn. None of those rights (or lack thereof) need be codified by amendment because there is no subtraction of those rights in the original document, as there was for women and blacks.

The tenth amendment, far from being the States’ rights panacea that “tenthers” would have us believe, actually makes it clear that Federal law is the dominant jurisdiction in all cases where Federal law exists. And civil rights are Federal law, no matter how they come into being. That’s the way the process works. In theory, abortion could be outlawed as a violation of the civil rights of the unborn by a conservative SCOTUS and it would instantly become the law of the land, irrespective of States’ rights. At that point, it WOULD take a constitutional amendment to re-balance the rights of the unborn against the rights of mothers, because SCOTUS would have found cause in the CURRENT construction of the constitution to grant those rights (which would be “new” rights in fact, but “established” rights in law), and it would take a restructuring of the CURRENT document to change that.

Paul Westlake said:
Precisely, Felix. The constitution itself codified unequal treatment for women and blacks specifically. The original document specifically named women for exclusion from voting and most property rights, and specifically named and codified slaves as 3/5 of a human being, and specifically distinguished the difference between slaves and black freedmen. Rights for women and blacks HAD to be added by amendment because they were specifically subtracted by original construction. By contrast, there are no such provisions specifically singling out abortion or homosexuals. There is no constitutional codification of what marriage is or how it should be administered. And in a time when childbirth and childhood life expectancy were both pretty sketchy, the notion of forcing women to bring each and every pregnancy to term would be laughable to the Founders, thus no mention of the rights of the unborn. None of those rights (or lack thereof) need be codified by amendment because there is no subtraction of those rights in the original document, as there was for women and blacks.

The tenth amendment, far from being the States’ rights panacea that “tenthers” would have us believe, actually makes it clear that Federal law is the dominant jurisdiction in all cases where Federal law exists. And civil rights are Federal law, no matter how they come into being. That’s the way the process works. In theory, abortion could be outlawed as a violation of the civil rights of the unborn by a conservative SCOTUS and it would instantly become the law of the land, irrespective of States’ rights. At that point, it WOULD take a constitutional amendment to re-balance the rights of the unborn against the rights of mothers, because SCOTUS would have found cause in the CURRENT construction of the constitution to grant those rights (which would be “new” rights in fact, but “established” rights in law), and it would take a restructuring of the CURRENT document to change that.

The example you cite shows why both Left and Right should use the amendment process, rather than court packing, if they want to create nationwide policy in these social issues. As you yourself admit, there is nothing in the Constitution with regard to abortion or gay marriage, which is precisely why these matters are the domain of the states — unless an amendment is passed stating otherwise. And if these decisions are routinely assigned to the Supreme Court, then a single change of membership would make the Left regret their zeal in subverting the democratic process and allowing unelected judges decide such important matters.

This is pretty straight-forward stuff. Do you deal with these issues by (1) using the amendment process specified in the Constitution or by (2) packing the court with compliant judges who will promote a favored agenda rather than follow the law.

Going down the second path is setting the groundwork for tyranny and abuse of the checks and balances that are at the core of our system of government. I will back the first, even if it produces results that run contrary to my own personal agenda. Because the honesty and accountability of our system are more important than winning at all costs.

timzank said:
You are, to put it mildly, a fucking idiot. And I don’t hate you, and I’m not intolerant of you either, I just think you’re a fucking idiot.

awww, does someone need a hug?

felixw said:
Dude, you need to read the Constitution some time. These very issues were changes by adding amendments to the Constitution. Exactly what the Left refuses to do nowadays. And exactly what I am advocating should be done with divisive issues in the current day. So you — unwittingly — make my case for me.

The fact that you don’t understand this stuff is scary. it’s basic civics. The left tramples on the Constitution, but doesn’t even have a clue what is in it. Heaven help us!

I see your point of actually following the due process of law but the argument that these require a new constitutional amendment is not convincing. As Paul pointed out ,an amendment was needed in specific cases to change what was in the Constitution. Gay rights can be covered by the 14th amendment. No new amendment is needed , but rather judges who interpret and enforce existing law, or judges who declare state laws in violation of the 14th amendment.
Even after civil rights amendments were added the courts had to enforce those rights and not all judges did so equally.

Could you explain what you mean by packing the courts? I don’t see putting judges in place that will enforce the 14th amendment as trashing the Constitution. I agree with due process but see that as enforcing the Constitution rather than trashing it.

felixw said:
As you yourself admit, there is nothing in the Constitution with regard to abortion or gay marriage, which is precisely why these matters are the domain of the states — unless an amendment is passed stating otherwise.

You’re only half right. The other two ways Federal law is established are via legislation and via the courts making rulings on the constitutionality of various issues brought before the courts. Whether the courts are stacked with liberals or conservatives, or fruit salad, it doesn’t matter. They have a role in the process. There’s nothing subversive about it. That’s the way the Founders designed our system. The reason I cited an example that included a SCOTUS decision that would clearly go against my personal views, is to illustrate your exact point, minus the subversion, which doesn’t exist simply by virtue of a SCOTUS ruling we don’t like. I would vehemently disagree with SCOTUS if they placed the life of the unborn over the life of the mother, but if they ruled in that manner, I would have to accept it as the law of the land until some other part of our process responded with appropriate law. I don’t begrudge my opponents their victories, provided they’re rooted in truth and the integrity of our constitutional process, which includes the courts. Unelected judges have been deciding these matters, in ways that have pissed both liberals and conservatives off, for more than two centuries now, from Santa Clara v Union Pacific, through Plessy v Ferguson, Dredd Scott, Brown v the Board of Ed, and right up to Bush v Gore and Citizens United v the FEC. The courts have a long history of creating sharp turns in American life. Sometimes those turns favor your side, sometimes my side… but in the end, SCOTUS’s job is to see to it that ALL those decisions favor an honest reading of the constitution… which is not always apparent, but that is the design. I would be arguing less about whether the courts have a right to make rulings and more about how they ground those rulings in constitutional law.

felixw said:
Do you deal with these issues by (1) using the amendment process specified in the Constitution or by (2) packing the court with compliant judges who will promote a favored agenda rather than follow the law.
Going down the second path is setting the groundwork for tyranny and abuse of the checks and balances that are at the core of our system of government. I will back the first, even if it produces results that run contrary to my own personal agenda. Because the honesty and accountability of our system are more important than winning at all costs.

I don’t disagree with your overall sentiment – you want honesty, integrity, and transparency in the process, and I respect that. But the courts are what they are for a reason. Even though SCOTUS has made some egregiously wrong decisions (constitutionally), when it comes to basic civil rights, the Founders recognized that Federal law would have to be superior to State law to prevent the nation from fracturing into a myriad of unequal domains. And SCOTUS has the constitutional power to make law by how they rule on the constitutionality of policies and civil rights that are newly being considered by the court. Judges are supposed to be activists in the name of the constitution. The judges don’t go out and ask for petitions, they choose from among the hundreds of petitions they get every year, and rule on issues the American people are asking them to consider. They aren’t an independent junta running roughshod over our system, they ARE the system as much as anyone else. And here I am defending a mostly conservative court, that has stabbed me in the back twice in my lifetime already – but they have the power and constitutional authority to do it. Sucks a lot sometimes, but it is what it is. Only a wholesale restructuring of Article 3 in the constitution can change that.

felixw said:
Use your head and think through this for a moment.

Slavery was abolished with the 13th amendment
Equal protection and equal rights and privileges for all citizens guaranteed in the 14th amendment
Voting rights were guaranteed with the 15th amendment
Etc.

because those ACTIVIST Judges can’t figure out what free means

CosmosDan said:
I see your point of actually following the due process of law but the argument that these require a new constitutional amendment is not convincing. As Paul pointed out ,an amendment was needed in specific cases to change what was in the Constitution. Gay rights can be covered by the 14th amendment. No new amendment is needed , but rather judges who interpret and enforce existing law, or judges who declare state laws in violation of the 14th amendment.
Even after civil rights amendments were added the courts had to enforce those rights and not all judges did so equally.

Could you explain what you mean by packing the courts? I don’t see putting judges in place that will enforce the 14th amendment as trashing the Constitution. I agree with due process but see that as enforcing the Constitution rather than trashing it.

The tenth amendment states clearly that: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

The wording here couldn’t be any clearer. As a result, marriage laws and the definition of marriage are in the domain of the states. If people want a federal definition of marriage, they need to pass a constitutional amendment. This is the way it is done in our democratic system. But in recent decades, a different tactic has come to the fore — namely, put people into the Supreme Court who will push through a certain political agenda regardless of what is written in the Constitution. Don’t tell me you haven’t noticed? This is a dangerous ploy, which may allow ideologues to force through changes on issues where they lack support of voters, but opens us up to the most tyrannical long term consequences.

Honestly, this isn’t that hard to understand, except for those who willfully pretend they don’t comprehend the very ploy they are working so hard to implement.

Paul Westlake said:
You’re only half right. The other two ways Federal law is established are via legislation and via the courts making rulings on the constitutionality of various issues brought before the courts. Whether the courts are stacked with liberals or conservatives, or fruit salad, it doesn’t matter. They have a role in the process. There’s nothing subversive about it. That’s the way the Founders designed our system. The reason I cited an example that included a SCOTUS decision that would clearly go against my personal views, is to illustrate your exact point, minus the subversion, which doesn’t exist simply by virtue of a SCOTUS ruling we don’t like. I would vehemently disagree with SCOTUS if they placed the life of the unborn over the life of the mother, but if they ruled in that manner, I would have to accept it as the law of the land until some other part of our process responded with appropriate law. I don’t begrudge my opponents their victories, provided they’re rooted in truth and the integrity of our constitutional process, which includes the courts. Unelected judges have been deciding these matters, in ways that have pissed both liberals and conservatives off, for more than two centuries now, from Santa Clara v Union Pacific, through Plessy v Ferguson, Dredd Scott, Brown v the Board of Ed, and right up to Bush v Gore and Citizens United v the FEC. The courts have a long history of creating sharp turns in American life. Sometimes those turns favor your side, sometimes my side… but in the end, SCOTUS’s job is to see to it that ALL those decisions favor an honest reading of the constitution… which is not always apparent, but that is the design. I would be arguing less about whether the courts have a right to make rulings and more about how they ground those rulings in constitutional law.

I don’t disagree with your overall sentiment – you want honesty, integrity, and transparency in the process, and I respect that. But the courts are what they are for a reason. Even though SCOTUS has made some egregiously wrong decisions (constitutionally), when it comes to basic civil rights, the Founders recognized that Federal law would have to be superior to State law to prevent the nation from fracturing into a myriad of unequal domains. And SCOTUS has the constitutional power to make law by how they rule on the constitutionality of policies and civil rights that are newly being considered by the court. Judges are supposed to be activists in the name of the constitution. The judges don’t go out and ask for petitions, they choose from among the hundreds of petitions they get every year, and rule on issues the American people are asking them to consider. They aren’t an independent junta running roughshod over our system, they ARE the system as much as anyone else. And here I am defending a mostly conservative court, that has stabbed me in the back twice in my lifetime already – but they have the power and constitutional authority to do it. Sucks a lot sometimes, but it is what it is. Only a wholesale restructuring of Article 3 in the constitution can change that.

Honestly, I don’t comprehend your position. You yourself stated (I quote your exact words): “There is no constitutional codification of what marriage is or how it should be administered.” And the tenth amendment clearly states (I quote the exact words): “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Certainly you can put those two statements together, and work out the implications. It’s not so hard.

felixw said:
The example you cite shows why both Left and Right should use the amendment process, rather than court packing

BOTH

felixw said:
It would be much better if both “progressives” and “conservatives” followed the constitution as written

BOTH

felixw said:
You don’t have the votes and can’t get the votes.

and didnt before civil rights – did that make it right?

felixw said:
So you go down a very dangerous path of putting in judges you vote their own political agenda rather than follow the written law.

thats why the right needs to get back in power to So you go down a very dangerous path of putting in judges you vote their own political agenda rather than follow the written law.

felixw said:
Honestly, I don’t comprehend your position. You yourself stated (I quote your exact words): “There is no constitutional codification of what marriage is or how it should be administered.” And the tenth amendment clearly states (I quote the exact words): “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Certainly you can put those two statements together, and work out the implications. It’s not so hard.

only if you ignore he also said

felixw said:
And here I am defending a mostly conservative court, that has stabbed me in the back twice in my lifetime already – but they have the power and constitutional authority to do it.

felixw said:
And SCOTUS has the constitutional power to make law by how they rule on the constitutionality of policies and civil rights that are newly being considered by the court.

Montana GOP Policy: Make Homosexuality Illegal

The party adopted an official platform in June that keeps a long-held position in support of making homosexual acts illegal,
a policy adopted after the Montana Supreme Court struck down such laws in 1997.

felixw said:
The tenth amendment states clearly that: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

The wording here couldn’t be any clearer. As a result, marriage laws and the definition of marriage are in the domain of the states. If people want a federal definition of marriage, they need to pass a constitutional amendment. This is the way it is done in our democratic system. But in recent decades, a different tactic has come to the fore — namely, put people into the Supreme Court who will push through a certain political agenda regardless of what is written in the Constitution. Don’t tell me you haven’t noticed? This is a dangerous ploy, which may allow ideologues to force through changes on issues where they lack support of voters, but opens us up to the most tyrannical long term consequences.

Honestly, this isn’t that hard to understand, except for those who willfully pretend they don’t comprehend the very ploy they are working so hard to implement.

I get it. The difference of opinion is is whether this
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. already covers same sex marriage. It’s not trashing the constitution to hold that it does. That’s why judges are declaring laws that prohibit same sex marriage to be unconstitutional. There’s no trashing or circumventing of due process, or need for a new amendment, if those charged with interpreting the constitution {judges} find that the Constitution already speaks to a specific issue, in this case, equal rights.

In this case the interpretation is that a Sate that creates a definition of marriage and law that refuses to legally recognize same sex marriage, has abridged the privileges and denied the liberties of citizens. Clearly this in is violation of the Constitution as it stands, without an amendment.
I understand your argument , but I disagree that it’s as clear cut as you seem to think, or that people who merely want the Constitution enforced when it comes to equal rights, are somehow trashing the system by seeking judges who agree with their interpretation. That kind of thinking has a long history for both parties.

Personally I think the recent Supreme Court Decision to allow cooperations to make political donations as persons, is a huge and alarming mistake that seems to go against the spirit of the constitution. I’m amazed there hasn’t been more outrage over that.

Note to Senator Inhofe: If “Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell” is repealed and no other legislation is passed, then the military services revert to the UCMJ’s absolute prohibition of homosexuality in the military. DA/DT was a liberalization of the penalties for homosexuals, not a limitation.

felixw said:
Honestly, I don’t comprehend your position. You yourself stated (I quote your exact words): “There is no constitutional codification of what marriage is or how it should be administered.” And the tenth amendment clearly states (I quote the exact words): “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Certainly you can put those two statements together, and work out the implications. It’s not so hard.

Felix, please don’t be condescending when you’re also being deliberately obtuse (and I know you are because you’re smarter than that!). ;-)

It is BECAUSE there is no mention of those rights in the original framing that granting those rights does not REQUIRE a constitutional amendment. But because women and blacks WERE specifically singled out for a reduction of rights in the original construction, it took a re-construction (via the amendment process) to codify those rights in the original document. Since the rights of the unborn are not specifically singled out in the constitution, SCOTUS is not bound to adhere to a provision that doesn’t exist, and therefore, is free to interpret those “rights” in the context of already existing rights, and whether or not the new rights being considered are consistent with rights already being enjoyed by other segments of the population. It’s not new law, it’s interpretation of existing law, and SCOTUS does it ALL THE TIME, as with Bush v Gore. Where the Federal government is silent, yes, it’s a State issue. But the instant the Feds get involved, whether by legislation or by SCOTUS ruling, State law is subordinated by Federal edict.

You may PREFER the amendment process to court rulings, and I might even agree with that in many instances to achieve the outcomes I desire, but I’m not arguing about outcome here. Just process.

no-touchy-touchy said:
felixw said:
Honestly, I don’t comprehend your position. You yourself stated (I quote your exact words): “There is no constitutional codification of what marriage is or how it should be administered.” And the tenth amendment clearly states (I quote the exact words): “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Certainly you can put those two statements together, and work out the implications. It’s not so hard.

only if you ignore he also said

felixw said:
And here I am defending a mostly conservative court, that has stabbed me in the back twice in my lifetime already – but they have the power and constitutional authority to do it.

felixw said:
And SCOTUS has the constitutional power to make law by how they rule on the constitutionality of policies and civil rights that are newly being considered by the court.

Bingo! Thanks. ;-)

CosmosDan said:
I get it. The difference of opinion is is whether this
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. already covers same sex marriage. It’s not trashing the constitution to hold that it does. That’s why judges are declaring laws that prohibit same sex marriage to be unconstitutional. There’s no trashing or circumventing of due process, or need for a new amendment, if those charged with interpreting the constitution {judges} find that the Constitution already speaks to a specific issue, in this case, equal rights.

In this case the interpretation is that a Sate that creates a definition of marriage and law that refuses to legally recognize same sex marriage, has abridged the privileges and denied the liberties of citizens. Clearly this in is violation of the Constitution as it stands, without an amendment.

Good point
Judges are not “activist” ONLY if they disagree with you for instance a Liberal could argue that

Paul Westlake said:
as with Bush v Gore.

felixw said:
They didn’t try to pack the court, the ugly, dangerous game you conservatives s play.

CosmosDan said:
There’s no trashing or circumventing of due process, or need for a new amendment, if those charged with interpreting the constitution {judges} find that the Constitution already speaks to a specific issue, in this case, equal rights.

Precisely my point, as well. What is extant as a right in the constitution is for the courts to decide through legal deliberation. The Framers could not anticipate every contingency, and therefore created a process by which our society could evolve with the changing nature of our populace. Knowing that the majority would, from time to time, attempt to marginalize the minority over a variety of issues, not least of which includes civil rights, the Framers included the emergency relief valve of the Judiciary to ensure equal protection for ALL citizens under the law. Just because a majority of people want to discriminate, doesn’t mean it’s legal or even reflective of our form of government. As a Republican voter, Felix, (more often than not, I would guess), you should be totally on board with the republican form of government we have that prevents the mob from seizing control on a whim. That mob seems like your people right now, but they haven’t always been and won’t always be your people. You’ll be thanking your lucky stars when a majority of militant liberals decides to outlaw the GOP and declare it a terrorist organization, handing out permits for conservative hunting season, and SCOTUS steps in and says, “not today, kids.” Trust me. ;-)

Note to non-constitutional scholars: The Constitution says nothing about the Supreme Court having the authority to rule on the constitutionality of a law passed by the Congress. That authority was established by precedent after a series of court cases. And yes, “Brown VS the Board of Education of Topeka Kansas”, which mandated desegregation of the public schools, was decided by the Supremes, but the ruling was based upon the Constitutional amendments added to the constitution after the Civil War. And please note that it was an earlier Supreme Court decision that said that “separate but equal” in schooling and public facilities was just fine, and which led to over 100 years of enforced segregation in the South. It was, by the way, that Liberal Progressive icon President Woodrow Wilson, a rabidly-segregationist Virginian, who ordered all federal agencies in the nation’s capital and our military services segregated and had separate bathrooms and water fountains built in all federal buildings. He also opposed Womens’ Suffrage.

Kinnison said:
Note to non-constitutional scholars

Way to start with a condescending shot across everyone’s bow…

Kinnison said:
The Constitution says nothing about the Supreme Court having the authority to rule on the constitutionality of a law passed by the Congress. That authority was established by precedent after a series of court cases.

True, the constitution says nothing EXPLICIT about the judiciary’s role in ruling on constitutionality, however, the precedent you cited stuck precisely because it was the only mechanism for overturning majority rule on an unconstitutional provision. The constitution makes clear what laws congress can and cannot pass, but the majority passes policy that goes beyond those provisions all the time. As the Federal Judiciary is the highest arbiter of legality in the land, it is the only mechanism for keeping the tyranny of the majority in check.

Article 3, section 2:
“The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;–to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;–to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;–to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;–to Controversies between two or more States;– between a State and Citizens of another State,–between Citizens of different States,–between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.”

There is no equivocation here. The Supreme Court is supreme in all legal cases. And the constitutionality, or lack thereof, is, by definition, a legal issue. Therefore, SCOTUS has jurisdiction. Just becasue it had to be brought about by precedent, doesn’t mean it isn’t real.

Thanks for the history lesson on the evils of liberalism, but we were talking about process, not ideology. We know that the Democratic party had its share of racists before the Civil Rights Act was passed. But almost ALL of them moved to the GOP ages ago. So thanks for playing, but you can cut out the professorial routine now. ;-)

Paul Westlake said:
Precisely my point, as well. What is extant as a right in the constitution is for the courts to decide through legal deliberation. The Framers could not anticipate every contingency, and therefore created a process by which our society could evolve with the changing nature of our populace. Knowing that the majority would, from time to time, attempt to marginalize the minority over a variety of issues, not least of which includes civil rights, the Framers included the emergency relief valve of the Judiciary to ensure equal protection for ALL citizens under the law. Just because a majority of people want to discriminate, doesn’t mean it’s legal or even reflective of our form of government. As a Republican voter, Felix, (more often than not, I would guess), you should be totally on board with the republican form of government we have that prevents the mob from seizing control on a whim. That mob seems like your people right now, but they haven’t always been and won’t always be your people. You’ll be thanking your lucky stars when a majority of militant liberals decides to outlaw the GOP and declare it a terrorist organization, handing out permits for conservative hunting season, and SCOTUS steps in and says, “not today, kids.” Trust me. ;-)

Excellent Sarcasm to make a point or

our country could one day be quoting the 1,256,689th amendment

no-touchy-touchy said:
our country could one day be quoting the 1,256,689th amendment

It would be nice if we lasted that long, eh? At the current pace, when would that be – something like the year 10 million! Awesome! ;-)

FelixW, you took my quote on of context, to make your own point. You stated that I said: “If you have states rights, as you so much cherish, then the states can do whatever they damn well please. ”

What I actually said, with context:

“The so-called race card is important here, Felix, even you choose to belittle it. Because if you have states rights, as you so much cherish, then the states can do whatever they damn well please. As I said before, segregation and separate but equal was the so-called law of the land even after the amendments giving blacks equal rights. So the government had to intervene. You choose to ignore historical facts. And as for the comments about who was a Democrat or Republican 50 or 100 years ago, that of course is irrelevant, and has zero to do with your original comments. What matters is: States Rights, as you want in social issues, can be detrimental, as they were in the 1950s and 1960s. I am not trampling on the Constitution (another attack that has nothing to do with this argument). You sir, are trampling on historical truths. So stick to the topic instead of churlish beside the point attacks.”

So you see, you decided to make your comments based only on what I partially said. And you do so only to make a point that goes in a different direction from what the discussion was about. In a high school debate, you would have points taken away for not staying on course.

Paul Westlake said:
Precisely my point, as well. What is extant as a right in the constitution is for the courts to decide through legal deliberation. The Framers could not anticipate every contingency, and therefore created a process by which our society could evolve with the changing nature of our populace. Knowing that the majority would, from time to time, attempt to marginalize the minority over a variety of issues, not least of which includes civil rights, the Framers included the emergency relief valve of the Judiciary to ensure equal protection for ALL citizens under the law. Just because a majority of people want to discriminate, doesn’t mean it’s legal or even reflective of our form of government. As a Republican voter, Felix, (more often than not, I would guess), you should be totally on board with the republican form of government we have that prevents the mob from seizing control on a whim.

The beauty of our Constitution aside from the brillaince of the checks and balances that intuit the failings of human nature is IMO a simple principle. It’s one we could find in many religions but the Constitution demonstrates no religion is required.

Whatever rights and freedoms I want for myself, I must advocate for all others, regardless of skin color or religion, or social political opinions. If I want freedom of speech I must defend freedom of speech for those I disagree with and on to other liberties. It demands an introspective search and struggle for equality as new challenges and new specifics arise.
As someone pointed out, issue after issue where this simple principle is violated , the painful struggle eventually ends with this principle emerging victorious even when the majority has disagreed.

btw Paul, you are my Mediaite hero. I always learn something from reading your discussions with others. Thanks

Paul Westlake said:
It would be nice if we lasted that long, eh? At the current pace, when would that be – something like the year 10 million! Awesome! ;-)

Not if we make amendment for everything that the courts could decide

Paul Westlake said:
It would be nice if we lasted that long, eh? At the current pace, when would that be – something like the year 10 million! Awesome! ;-)

Guess I should stay away from sarcasm?

CosmosDan said:
The beauty of our Constitution aside from the brillaince of the checks and balances that intuit the failings of human nature is IMO a simple principle. It’s one we could find in many religions but the Constitution demonstrates no religion is required.

Totally agreed. Well articulated.

CosmosDan said:
btw Paul, you are my Mediaite hero. I always learn something from reading your discussions with others. Thanks

Thank you very much. That’s very kind of you. I really appreciate your insightful contributions, as well.

no-touchy-touchy said:
Paul Westlake said:
It would be nice if we lasted that long, eh? At the current pace, when would that be – something like the year 10 million! Awesome! ;-)

Not if we make amendment for everything that the courts could decide

no-touchy-touchy said:
Guess I should stay away from sarcasm?

No, not at all. My flub for failing to put a laugh in my first comment. I totally got it! I just went on to make a different observation based on the number you threw out, only I forgot to acknowledge your joke in the process.

By all means, keep them coming! You’ve already added an excellent dimension to the debate. ;-)

Paul Westlake said:
No, not at all. My flub for failing to put a laugh in my first comment. I totally got it! I just went on to make a different observation based on the number you threw out, only I forgot to acknowledge your joke in the process.

By all means, keep them coming! You’ve already added an excellent dimension to the debate. ;-)

did you ever post the link for your poll?

have tried lengthly debates, but doesent seem to work here aside from few,
frustrating to spend hours researching facts, only to have 1 line or statement taken out of context
then just sat back and watched the baiting

no-touchy-touchy said:
BOTH

BOTH

and didnt before civil rights – did that make it right?

thats why the right needs to get back in power to So you go down a very dangerous path of putting in judges you vote their own political agenda rather than follow the written law.

Hey No-Touchy-Touchy, there were enough votes to pass a constitutional amendment ending slavery back in 1865. There were enough votes to pass an amendment guaranteeing blacks the right to vote in 1870. So don’t tell me there weren’t enough votes to enact Civil Rights legislation in the 1950s and 1960s without packing the court. Read a history book before you toss out this idiotic spin.

alamo2 said:
FelixW, you took my quote on of context, to make your own point. You stated that I said: “If you have states rights, as you so much cherish, then the states can do whatever they damn well please. ”

What I actually said, with context:

“The so-called race card is important here, Felix, even you choose to belittle it. Because if you have states rights, as you so much cherish, then the states can do whatever they damn well please. As I said before, segregation and separate but equal was the so-called law of the land even after the amendments giving blacks equal rights. So the government had to intervene. You choose to ignore historical facts. And as for the comments about who was a Democrat or Republican 50 or 100 years ago, that of course is irrelevant, and has zero to do with your original comments. What matters is: States Rights, as you want in social issues, can be detrimental, as they were in the 1950s and 1960s. I am not trampling on the Constitution (another attack that has nothing to do with this argument). You sir, are trampling on historical truths. So stick to the topic instead of churlish beside the point attacks.”

So you see, you decided to make your comments based only on what I partially said. And you do so only to make a point that goes in a different direction from what the discussion was about. In a high school debate, you would have points taken away for not staying on course.

So much spin here, I am not even sure what points you are trying to make. My points are pretty simple: (1) you may not like state rights, but the Constitution is very clear in granting states all rights not explicitly granted to the Federal government. (2) You can handle issues of racial discrimination through amendments, if you want to enforce them nationwide. (3) The Republicans took the lead in that process, by abolishing slavery (1865), enforcing voting rights for African-Americans (1870), etc. — all using the proper amendment process. I can’t see anything you’ve said that remotely disproves any of those historically documented facts. But you do blow a lot of hot air in the process.

Paul Westlake said:
It is BECAUSE there is no mention of those rights in the original framing that granting those rights does not REQUIRE a constitutional amendment.

You present an amazing argument. Totally in violation of the tenth amendment. The tenth amendment couldn’t be written more clearly: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. It does not read: “The powers not delegated to the United States in Constitution belong to the federal government, and are decided by unelected judges.” It takes a lot of work to spin the kind of position you have come up with — but I am not surprised, since the left has worked hard to try to obfuscate and destroy the 10th amendment. But that clear, simple sentence is hard to turn into its opposite, no matter how hard you work at it.

felixw said:
You can handle issues of racial discrimination through amendments, if you want to enforce them nationwide.

because this is not clear enough?

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.

My point about packing court is the spin that 1 side or the other “packs” the court
thats why we have Democratic elections

no-touchy-touchy said:
only if you ignore he also said

No Touchy Touchy, why do you make up statements from me? Things I’ve never said? What a pathetic demonstration of incompetence on your part. But I guess that’s why you are so comfortable making up stuff about the Constitution too. Work on separating fantasy from reality before you post stuff about me again.

felixw said:
You present an amazing argument. Totally in violation of the tenth amendment. The tenth amendment couldn’t be written more clearly: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. It does not read: “The powers not delegated to the United States in Constitution belong to the federal government, and are decided by unelected judges.” It takes a lot of work to spin the kind of position you have come up with — but I am not surprised, since the left has worked hard to try to obfuscate and destroy the 10th amendment. But that clear, simple sentence is hard to turn into its opposite, no matter how hard you work at it.

I guess if you want to look at this

no-touchy-touchy said:
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.

we could amend the shit out of the constitution with
doesent say Chinese
doesent say Japanese
doesent say Samoan
doesent say Russian
doesent say Canadian
doesent say Chinese
doesent say Chinese
doesent say Chinese

no-touchy-touchy said:
because this is not clear enough?

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.

My point about packing court is the spin that 1 side or the other “packs” the court
thats why we have Democratic elections

There is a difference between judges who interpret the law as written, and judges who impose their own views no matter what the law says. If you weren’t corrupt and power-hungry, you would want the former. The fact that you can’t see any kind of judicial politics besides court-packing speaks volumes about your integrity.

And in terms of Republicans packing the court, the historic record is exactly opposite. Many of the heroes of the Left — Earl Warren, John Paul Stevens, Harry Blackmun, etc. — were appointed by Republican Presidents. In contrast, the Democrats never appoint a judge that doesn’t vote in lockstep with a liberal agenda. Those are just facts — you know, those little things you ignore.

no-touchy-touchy said:
I guess if you want to look at this

we could amend the shit out of the constitution with
doesent say Chinese
doesent say Japanese
doesent say Samoan
doesent say Russian
doesent say Canadian
doesent say Chinese
doesent say Chinese
doesent say Chinese

You can’t even spell, let alone present a coherent argument. What a joke you are.

@felixw
sorry, I think you may be defending before reading – I hit Quote from your post in reply to his
my point remains the same

no-touchy-touchy says:
September 19, 2010 at 12:34 pm no-touchy-touchy(Quote)
Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

felixw said:
Honestly, I don’t comprehend your position. You yourself stated (I quote your exact words): “There is no constitutional codification of what marriage is or how it should be administered.” And the tenth amendment clearly states (I quote the exact words): “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Certainly you can put those two statements together, and work out the implications. It’s not so hard.

only if you ignore he also said

Paul Westlake said:
And here I am defending a mostly conservative court, that has stabbed me in the back twice in my lifetime already – but they have the power and constitutional authority to do it.

Paul Westlake said:
And SCOTUS has the constitutional power to make law by how they rule on the constitutionality of policies and civil rights that are newly being considered by the court.

felixw said:
“The powers not delegated to the United States in Constitution belong to the federal government, and are decided by unelected judges.”

Actually, aside from your gratuitous use of “unelected,” which is only partially true, that is EXACTLY what the tenth amendment says. Who the hell do you think the “United States” IS in that statement? We the people? The “United States,” in that amendment, refers specifically to the Federal government, not just one or two of its branches, ALL of the Federal government, including the Supreme Court. The most important thing that the tenth amendment ACTUALLY makes clear is that Federal law takes supremacy in ALL instances where it exists, and ONLY in those instances where the Federal government (including SCOTUS) is silent AND the constitution makes no prohibition, do those powers devolve to inferior jurisdictions, the LOWEST of which is the individual.

felixw said:
It takes a lot of work to spin the kind of position you have come up with — but I am not surprised, since the left has worked hard to try to obfuscate and destroy the 10th amendment. But that clear, simple sentence is hard to turn into its opposite, no matter how hard you work at it.

And yet you and the “tenthers” keep trying and trying and trying…

Listen, Felix, I’m really trying to be nice to you but constantly lumping me into buzzword categories as you make unconvincing arguments is getting old. You wanna stick to the point and drop the histrionics or do you want to go back to loudly insulting each other? You decide.

no-touchy-touchy said:
@felixw
sorry, I think you may be defending before reading – I hit Quote from your post in reply to his
my point remains the same

no-touchy-touchy says:
September 19, 2010 at 12:34 pm no-touchy-touchy(Quote)
Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

felixw said:
Honestly, I don’t comprehend your position. You yourself stated (I quote your exact words): “There is no constitutional codification of what marriage is or how it should be administered.” And the tenth amendment clearly states (I quote the exact words): “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Certainly you can put those two statements together, and work out the implications. It’s not so hard.

only if you ignore he also said

Paul Westlake said:
And here I am defending a mostly conservative court, that has stabbed me in the back twice in my lifetime already – but they have the power and constitutional authority to do it.

Paul Westlake said:
And SCOTUS has the constitutional power to make law by how they rule on the constitutionality of policies and civil rights that are newly being considered by the court.

Thanks for clarifying. I am out of here. No purpose in me saying anything more on these fairly obvious points. If you want to know my position, refer to the Constitution and Bill of Rights. It’s all written there in very plain language. I support what is actually written in the document. Note the emphasis on “actually written.” That will guide you in case you get confused.

Paul Westlake said:
Actually, aside from your gratuitous use of “unelected,” which is only partially true, that is EXACTLY what the tenth amendment says. Who the hell do you think the “United States” IS in that statement? We the people? The “United States,” in that amendment, refers specifically to the Federal government, not just one or two of its branches, ALL of the Federal government, including the Supreme Court. The most important thing that the tenth amendment ACTUALLY makes clear is that Federal law takes supremacy in ALL instances where it exists, and ONLY in those instances where the Federal government (including SCOTUS) is silent AND the constitution makes no prohibition, do those powers devolve to inferior jurisdictions, the LOWEST of which is the individual.

And yet you and the “tenthers” keep trying and trying and trying…

Listen, Felix, I’m really trying to be nice to you but constantly lumping me into buzzword categories as you make unconvincing arguments is getting old. You wanna stick to the point and drop the histrionics or do you want to go back to loudly insulting each other? You decide.

Let’s end this discussion. When words start turning into their opposites, I don’t even know where to respond. Adios!

felixw said:
So much spin here, I am not even sure what points you are trying to make. My points are pretty simple: (1) you may not like state rights, but the Constitution is very clear in granting states all rights not explicitly granted to the Federal government. (2) You can handle issues of racial discrimination through amendments, if you want to enforce them nationwide. (3) The Republicans took the lead in that process, by abolishing slavery (1865), enforcing voting rights for African-Americans (1870), etc. — all using the proper amendment process. I can’t see anything you’ve said that remotely disproves any of those historically documented facts. But you do blow a lot of hot air in the process.

I think everyone understands your argument quite well. How about responding to mine, concerning an amendment not being necessary since the issue is already covered by an existing amendment.

felixw said:
Let’s end this discussion. When words start turning into their opposites, I don’t even know where to respond. Adios!

1 quick question

why are the constitutional lawyers on opposite sieds of bush v gore both arguing consitutionality of gay marriage?

felixw said:
Thanks for clarifying. I am out of here. No purpose in me saying anything more on these fairly obvious points. If you want to know my position, refer to the Constitution and Bill of Rights. It’s all written there in very plain language. I support what is actually written in the document. Note the emphasis on “actually written.” That will guide you in case you get confused.

Since we’ve had 200+ years of the Supreme Court disagreeing over an interpretation of constitutional rights I think you believing yours is the obviously correct one is a little premature. You failed to demonstrate that an amendment is necessary, ot the the 14th amendment doesn’t already cover the issue. Stop by if you have something relating to that argument.,

felixw said:
You can’t even spell, let alone present a coherent argument. What a joke you are.

doesent say Bad Spellers

felixw said:
The fact that you can’t see any kind of judicial politics besides court-packing speaks volumes about your integrity.

Why can’t it just speak volumes about her opinion? Why do you go all the way to her integrity as a human being so quickly? I just don’t get it, Felix.

felixw said:
You can’t even spell, let alone present a coherent argument. What a joke you are.

I’m not going to wade hip-deep into this fight, but I will say, it should be no surprise that you get what you give. You’ve shown that you can be polite and disagree on a rational level without hurling insults before. Why not rise above and keep a good thing going? It doesn’t matter how “evil” you think each of us may be, we’re all Americans trying to figure out what’s right for America. Go off on public figures all you want, I have no sympathy for celebrities, but going off like that on the people around here just doesn’t help us get anywhere. I know no-touchy has been snarky but I don’t think she called you joke or impugned you integrity as a person. I can’t have a legitimate discussion with someone who keeps making these leaps and maligning people.

felixw said:
Let’s end this discussion. When words start turning into their opposites, I don’t even know where to respond. Adios!

I guess my last comments were a waste of time. And I guess, so is Felix. Too bad.

no-touchy-touchy said:
did you ever post the link for your poll?

I tried posting as a link but Mediaite keeps giving me an error whenever a link is embedded. You shouldn’t need the http prefix if you just paste this into your browser’s address bar: bit.ly/9KZFgu

Thanks!

no-touchy-touchy said:
have tried lengthly debates, but doesent seem to work here aside from few,
frustrating to spend hours researching facts, only to have 1 line or statement taken out of context
then just sat back and watched the baiting

I know exactly what you mean. I haven’t been posting here for very long, but there is a strong, virulent strain of reactionary propaganda on these boards. I know we’re not changing the world, but I’m glad there are a few people trying to keep the reactionaries honest.

Paul Westlake said:
I know exactly what you mean. I haven’t been posting here for very long, but there is a strong, virulent strain of reactionary propaganda on these boards. I know we’re not changing the world, but I’m glad there are a few people trying to keep the reactionaries honest.

have you picked up on 1 or 2 common themes?

Paul Westlake said:
I tried posting as a link but Mediaite keeps giving me an error whenever a link is embedded. You shouldn’t need the http prefix if you just paste this into your browser’s address bar: bit.ly/9KZFgu

done

no-touchy-touchy said:
have you picked up on 1 or 2 common themes?

Yes, but not rational themes. States’ rights seems to be mutable, depending on the issue. Deficits are bad all the time, except when GOP tax cuts create them. Putting watermelons on the White House lawn and photoshopping Obama into a witch doctor isn’t racism, but calling it racism IS, apparently. You know, that sort of thing.

As for actual themes: Obama bad. Liberals bad. Conservatives good. Libertarians good. Policy? What’s that?

;-)

no-touchy-touchy said:
Paul Westlake said:
I tried posting as a link but Mediaite keeps giving me an error whenever a link is embedded. You shouldn’t need the http prefix if you just paste this into your browser’s address bar: bit.ly/9KZFgu

done

Awesome! Thanks very much. I’ll take any comments you have on the survey questions or structure. Interested in any opinion you care to offer. Thanks again! ;-)

Paul Westlake said:

I know exactly what you mean. I haven’t been posting here for very long, but there is a strong, virulent strain of reactionary propaganda on these boards. I know we’re not changing the world, but I’m glad there are a few people trying to keep the reactionaries honest.

I hope that a consistent for a reasonable debate and consistent actions in that regard will have some positive affect somewhere. I don’t expect to change minds with one discussions but sometimes information and ideas will simmer over time.
I’ve been on other sites and chided liberals for bad attitudes and needless animosity. I’d rather be American citizens celebrating our form of Government with decent discussions.

Paul Westlake said:
Awesome! Thanks very much. I’ll take any comments you have on the survey questions or structure. Interested in any opinion you care to offer. Thanks again! ;-)

Interesting that greatest percentage will spend either nothing or the most
Nice that it’s short – hate surveys that when you think you are don, it takes you to another page

CosmosDan said:
I hope that a consistent for a reasonable debate and consistent actions in that regard will have some positive affect somewhere. I don’t expect to change minds with one discussions but sometimes information and ideas will simmer over time.
I’ve been on other sites and chided liberals for bad attitudes and needless animosity. I’d rather be American citizens celebrating our form of Government with decent discussions.

I believe that I’ve made that comment before
your side won, now lets work together for a better country
hope my side wins next time

Paul Westlake said:
bit.ly/9KZFgu

Just took it

CosmosDan said:
I hope that a consistent for a reasonable debate and consistent actions in that regard will have some positive affect somewhere. I don’t expect to change minds with one discussions but sometimes information and ideas will simmer over time.
I’ve been on other sites and chided liberals for bad attitudes and needless animosity. I’d rather be American citizens celebrating our form of Government with decent discussions.

I absolutely couldn’t agree more.

no-touchy-touchy said:
I believe that I’ve made that comment before
your side won, now lets work together for a better country
hope my side wins next time

It’s that element that has been purged from the GOP over the past 30 years, slowly but surely. I remember the days when Republicans would say just that. I started to see it disappear up close and personal when I was with CNN back in the CompuServe days, moderating those early chat rooms and seeing the first hard core flamers emerge. We thought we had an extreme group, but those people were gentle moderates by today’s standard. I know of eras like this in American history and that we’ve weathered these storms before… but it is so sad to see it happening in my lifetime.

CosmosDan said:
Just took it

More awesomeness! Thanks much. And thanks, no-touchy, for the feedback.

Hey, both of you, please spread the word among people you know who care about journalism, from any political persuasion. I’m trying to get a couple hundred results before I assemble the full business pitch. Any and all help is highly appreciated and could actually make a big difference in the long run.

And, Dan, I’d love any opinions you care to share on the questions, the structure, whatever.

Thanks again! ;-)

Paul Westlake said:
It’s that element that has been purged from the GOP over the past 30 years, slowly but surely. I remember the days when Republicans would say just that. I started to see it disappear up close and personal when I was with CNN back in the CompuServe days, moderating those early chat rooms and seeing the first hard core flamers emerge. We thought we had an extreme group, but those people were gentle moderates by today’s standard. I know of eras like this in American history and that we’ve weathered these storms before… but it is so sad to see it happening in my lifetime.

CompuServe?
wow – remember when people would have their own bbs?

Paul Westlake said:
It’s that element that has been purged from the GOP over the past 30 years, slowly but surely. I remember the days when Republicans would say just that. I started to see it disappear up close and personal when I was with CNN back in the CompuServe days, moderating those early chat rooms and seeing the first hard core flamers emerge. We thought we had an extreme group, but those people were gentle moderates by today’s standard. I know of eras like this in American history and that we’ve weathered these storms before… but it is so sad to see it happening in my lifetime.

I offered some in the comments space.

Man once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder, is the sport of every wind.
-Thomas Jefferson to James Smith, 1822.

Paul Westlake said:
I absolutely couldn’t agree more.

In fact I just visited HuffPo and saw my pleading with liberals to not bring angry insult signs to the Restore Sanity rally was rebuked by some. Oh well. Keep plugging away

no-touchy-touchy said:
CompuServe?
wow – remember when people would have their own bbs?

I got that free when I sold Packard Bells at Sears

CosmosDan said:
I got that free when I sold Packard Bells at Sears

Well that puts you at older than I thought Dan

How bout BBS?

What that am? Another older Service? I seem to remember one that began with P, but it escapes me. There was also MindScape right?

no-touchy-touchy said:
CompuServe?
wow – remember when people would have their own bbs?

I do! My first browser was not a browser, it was BBS communication software called “Crosstalk,” even before Mosaic came out. Yeah, everything text and scroll, menu driven, file tree structure. The early days were sparse.

CosmosDan said:
I offered some in the comments space.

Thanks!

CosmosDan said:
Man once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder, is the sport of every wind.
-Thomas Jefferson to James Smith, 1822.

Love it! More Jefferson: “Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that his justice cannot sleep forever. Commerce between master and slave is despotism. Nothing in more certainly written in the book of fate that these people are to be free.”

CosmosDan said:
In fact I just visited HuffPo and saw my pleading with liberals to not bring angry insult signs to the Restore Sanity rally was rebuked by some. Oh well. Keep plugging away

It’s a fine line. Jane Hamsher is out of line to be going nuts on the President mere weeks before election day, but Obama brought it on himself with his most recent foot-in-mouth episode. We all know the Will Rogers quote – what bugs me is when our own people forget that’s who we are and take the infighting too seriously.

CosmosDan said:
I got that free when I sold Packard Bells at Sears

I love this trip down memory lane – my first computer was a tiny but powerful little Dell laptop that I got through New School University when I took online classes. DIAL (Distance Instruction for the Adult Learner) was one of the first internet-based higher learning experiments and they got us all kinds of cool deals, including free Crosstalk. But way earlier than that, the first PC introduced to my home was the old Commodore 64. You couldn’t do anything with that machine, except program stupid repetitive progs in BASIC. We were addicted! ;-)

CosmosDan said:
What that am? Another older Service? I seem to remember one that began with P, but it escapes me. There was also MindScape right?

Before all the commercial login services, people would have a home computer devoted to several phone lines where someone could login to their computer and see pics or leave messages etc
horribly slow process then
Havent seen packard bell in a LOOOOOOOOOOONG time

CosmosDan said:
What that am? Another older Service? I seem to remember one that began with P, but it escapes me. There was also MindScape right?

The big three for about five years were CompuServe, AOL and Prodigy. Prodigy was always pretty bad. AOL got smart early and catered to the family set. CompuServe tried their best to keep the portal concept alive but never got focused and finally died long after Prodigy bit the dust and AOL morphed into the web platform it is today. AOL is not a service I use much at all anymore, but it has its niche due to decent planning. Just a shame that they had to nearly ruin TimeWarner along the way. ;-)

no-touchy-touchy said:
Before all the commercial login services, people would have a home computer devoted to several phone lines where someone could login to their computer and see pics or leave messages etc
horribly slow process then
Havent seen packard bell in a LOOOOOOOOOOONG time

I had my 486 baby with Windows for Workgroups. I was in awe, because it was such an upgrade from my Commodore 64 with floppy discs that were actually floppy.

CosmosDan said:
I had my 486 baby with Windows for Workgroups. I was in awe, because it was such an upgrade from my Commodore 64 with floppy discs that were actually floppy.

Yes, floppy floppies! LOL

My first ever computer upgrade was from a 2400 baud modem to a 9600 baud modem. Smokin’!

Then I upgraded the 386 CPU to a P90, on a laptop motherboard! Don’t make ‘em like THAT anymore.

With your floppy floppies and no-touchy’s BBS, I’m beginning to feel young again! ;-)

LOL So funny. I remember listening to my ole Commodore grind away as it loaded the program and I’d get all excited. I had a color dot matrix printer that I never printed color with.

Now if I wait more than 5 seconds I get impatient. We are so spoiled.

CosmosDan said:
I had my 486 baby with Windows for Workgroups. I was in awe, because it was such an upgrade from my Commodore 64 with floppy discs that were actually floppy.

I started with computers that had hard disc platters 12″-18″ in diameter
my first “real” job had me traveling around the country working on hard drives that had 5 MB fixed and 5 MB removable platters – weighed in at 180 lbs
for reference
1024 mb equals a GB
or 204 times as much information as 5MB

no-touchy-touchy said:
I started with computers that had hard disc platters 12″-18″ in diameter
my first “real” job had me traveling around the country working on hard drives that had 5 MB fixed and 5 MB removable platters – weighed in at 180 lbs

Holy crap! It’s like a cell phone the size of a Volkswagen.

Paul Westlake said:
Holy crap! It’s like a cell phone the size of a Volkswagen.

yep – I have seen the transformation of computers from the computer world
the origina computers I worked on had memory boards that were 64k (1024k/MB)
before me, I have spoken with technicians who worked on computers during viet nam era who had to deal with hydraulic arms on hd platters
I was once in the main office of Control Data (I’m old) and they had a platter on display in foyer
8 ft? maybe bigger

I am absolutely amazed at the data people have access to today in their homes

Paul Westlake said:
Holy crap! It’s like a cell phone the size of a Volkswagen.

What happened to the Building avatar?
looking for something for Dan for the Super Hero theme?

no-touchy-touchy said:
I am absolutely amazed at the data people have access to today in their homes

Moore’s Law has been scarily accurate so far. Boggles the mind to contemplate the future.

no-touchy-touchy said:
What happened to the Building avatar?
looking for something for Dan for the Super Hero theme?

I’m sorry. I don’t know what you mean.

Paul Westlake said:
I’m sorry. I don’t know what you mean.

it’s back
I was only seeing blank box with facebook symbol in corner

no-touchy-touchy said:
it’s back
I was only seeing blank box with facebook symbol in corner

Oh, my Ebbets Field avatar. Weird, I didn’t touch a thing. Glitch.

Paul Westlake said:
Oh, my Ebbets Field avatar. Weird, I didn’t touch a thing. Glitch.

what do you do when not researching new news shows?

no-touchy-touchy said:
what do you do when not researching new news shows?

I’m a media consultant and broadcasting teacher. My last full time job was with MLB.com, producing video and supervising the multimedia department. I also freelance in various capacities, from sports interviews to video journalism, but with less and less frequency as I shift into consulting (and trying to get the biggest news operation ever off the ground). ;-)

I’ve surmised you worked in computers, at least many years ago. What type of work? Still at it? Shifted gears?

Paul Westlake said:
I’m a media consultant and broadcasting teacher. My last full time job was with MLB.com, producing video and supervising the multimedia department. I also freelance in various capacities, from sports interviews to video journalism, but with less and less frequency as I shift into consulting (and trying to get the biggest news operation ever off the ground). ;-)

I’ve surmised you worked in computers, at least many years ago. What type of work? Still at it? Shifted gears?

I started at Indiana University 1978 intending to get a degree in Telecommunications (worked as a DJ in High School) wanted to to Radio/Television

was absolutely frustrated with not being able to get to the classes I wanted being an underclassman
My last straw was a 5hr class taught by a telecom law student and having to show him how to use equipment

I saw a commercial for Control Data Institute (technician with a briefcase)

traveled the country for a company in house, another where I visited Intel, Getty, etc

10 years ago got into full retail out of computers (still have questions from friends/former customers)
but still have the knack that many people in the industry do not have
right now – looking

Do you know anything about satellite streaming tech? I’m trying to find if it’s possible to beam satellite TV into homes without the dish. Any ideas?

Paul Westlake said:
Do you know anything about satellite streaming tech? I’m trying to find if it’s possible to beam satellite TV into homes without the dish. Any ideas?

I’m pretty good at research – take me a couple days
my immediate thoughts are the Internet might take over and make sat obsolete
for instance, there is now talk about taking over empty television airspace for a new SUPER wireless wan

no-touchy-touchy said:
I’m pretty good at research – take me a couple days
my immediate thoughts are the Internet might take over and make sat obsolete
for instance, there is now talk about taking over empty television airspace for a new SUPER wireless wan

That sounds right up my alley. In the instance that existing cable/sat systems refuse to carry the news channel, I want to be prepared with a competitive system that could carry everything, plus the news channel, and be offered everywhere our satellites or fiber can reach, globally. I think this operation will absolutely have to put birds in the sky, but the more they can feed a high-speed ground-based network, the more reliable I’m sure it would be. Accessibility and reliability at low cost are the goals. I don’t want to put you out at all, but if you happen upon anything that could point me in the right direction, please don’t hesitate to send it my way. You can also email me at pewestlake@gmail.com. Thanks for the info. I’m going to look into the super wireless wan concept asap.

no-touchy-touchy said:
Interesting that greatest percentage will spend either nothing or the most
Nice that it’s short – hate surveys that when you think you are don, it takes you to another page

I meant to say earlier – I also think that’s interesting, but not yet sure what it means, although I’m taking it as an encouraging sign that two-thirds would pay something. And I agree that some surveys are either way longer than they reveal up front, or often just thinly disguised attempts to retrieve contacts. That’s why I tell people to expect a clean, gimmick-free experience with my survey, and I’m proud that it lives up to that claim. Thanks for mentioning it.

felixw said:
The Left always has the most well considered and eloquent responses to the political issues of the day. I mean, who wouldn’t be persuaded by Timzank’s thoughtful and reasoned position?

he’s on your side of the aisle..nice try though.