[stormylin]

oops- SORRY - darn!! Why is it that words like darn, friggin or what have you, just don't seem to have the same affect when expressing

[Rollin' Rog]

Well, to the extent that Scalia really wishes to go that far I find his "philosophy" no threat at all, simply due to its extremism. Even he seems to realize how removed it is from current court standards.

As for our "Founding Fathers" (stormylin) -- keep in mind that they for the most part had English common law traditions that formed the basis of their approach to law as an institution. On the purely philosophical level, many of them believed in what they called "Natural" law (the source of our Declaration of Independence).

They did not have as their model the idea that some formal document, exalted as it may be, was something from which all future rights, rules and protections could flow. Not even the Bible could serve that purpose -- despite what some of the fundamentalists would have us believe.

English Common Law was the epitome of "living" law -- based on continuity of precedent but rooted ultimately in that sense of fairness and justice that ultimately preserves the dignity and spirit of humankind. Something which only human judgment can bring about.

[stormylin]

Originally Posted by Rollin' Rog

Stormylin, you'll get an even bigger kiss from Mulder now!

He He!! Finally!! After how many smacks I got from him that opposite of kissing are intended to sting. Oh well, that Never worked. For someone who is good with the girls, it sure took him long enough to figure that one out huh?

(Response below)

Anyway, the issues you raise are far too complex to debate in this thread, or perhaps any other as a practical matter.

The role of government, especially the federal government, changed radically in the years following the great depression -- ushered in by FDR in his attempt to correct the calamity that too little government regulation had brought about. The lessons of history are too long to summarize here -- but suffice it to say that despite many stumbles we have not had another market collapse or Great Depression since the advent of many of the social services and regulations which seem anathma to the "anti" government "pro" private sector types. I'm not saying there are not excesses -- but one reason the market collapsed, spiralling us into a major depression was the lack of safety nets and the kind of economic stability and ballast provided by these "welfare" services.

People who decry this on abstract grounds need to think clearly about just what they might be going without if the private sector were to be relied on to provide the wide range of services, benefits and regulations for which we need a national umbrella.

Actually, Rolling Rog, The Reason the depression occurred is because of phoney money expansion by the Federal Reserve which was suddenly retracted- that would be that the depression was 'caused by government' through the Federal Reserve. (Interestingly enough it is 'technically' private). Thus, government triggered the collapse.

Further the stock market crashed in Oct. of 1929, then in 1937 economic figures displayed that were recovering from the depression. However, the social programs stopped the economic growth during that period and we did not recover from this until WW2.

And truthfully, I had to plug my walking encyclopedia husband for that answer. He is the accomplished intellectual in the house. (He says he is rusty and the facts could be off a little). I am still working on it, fat chance I'll ever catch up with him. Though, another thread that I am on started a project for all of us to read up on the Depression to knock this around. Thus, that is Next on my list!!

You may be right about whether or not the issues I bring up are specifically relevent to this thread. I have tried to figure this one out. Though, I feel in the end all of these issues are critical to any federal decisions in this country- and most certainly relevent and critical in choosing a Superior Court Justice. Yea, I have gone off the beaten path a bit.

However, I don't agree at all that the system of government that is legit in this country as laid out by the Constitution is too difficult for site. Nor do I feel that rather simple economics of understanding that the private sector is always more efficient then gov is at all difficult. And never mind!! Look at this thread. I am on another list with predominately doctors (and yes they do exactly this- debate politics from several political perspectives- though the site was started by Libertarians). Sometimes I look at this site and think, jeez the doctors almost seem like dummies compared to this No really, of course they are really bright people and they get way too disertationy (sp) but in the end, this makes it all more interesting with many perspectives.

I personally think it is high time we get out of the two opinion box (Republicrat)- oops that's one and realize there is a very strong third opinion here. And this is one you will nearly Never read or hear about in the media. Every once in a while we get a line in an article. And again, this is a very large part of the population's position. They however believe the fallacy that you do, that this is All too complicated to become informed about. (Personally, I am much more sinister and feel it is an outright plan to stomp out messages of 'freedom' because freedom is a Huge threat to their corrupt system.) So the shorter answer is oh no it isn't too complicated!!

On the contrary, these issues that I bring up are quite simple, and it is this mess of a system that came about by adding tons of technically 'void' laws that is what is complicated. Case in point, If our Founding Fathers read this thread they would have a COW because they very definitively and intentionally made the fed Extremely simple!!

[Prolix]

Originally Posted by Mulder

That's a very well though out post--I commend you on it. Although as a bit of advice, don't say Mulder is wrong.

The problem with a "living" Constitution is that once you go with that, it loses its morings and gets set adrift in a sea of judicial fiat--we've seen that over the last 50 years especially. Saying there is some "test" that protects it is a bit naive--the court is free to define whatever "tests" they want.

As an example, you mentioned Roe v. Wade--that can be taken further to find that Gays have a Constiutional right to marriage. Point is, you can find any "right" you want (or not). As an example, the 9th Circuit just said parents have no right to shield their children from schools teaching them abuout sex in any manner they (the school see fit). It seems to me that's just as much a "privacy" right as abortion. But that's the problem--its whatever the particular judges at the time decide. That's dangerous.

Thanks. I still think that Judge Rhenquist was not naive in supporting the test for fundamental rights set forth in his opinion in Casey. Many posting in this thread seem fearful that the judiciary may not give appropriate deference to the will of the people or the legislature in interpreting the Constitution. But our system already has the answer, and you said it yourself Mulder - Amendment. Rather than the justices giving deference to the legislature or the will of the people, they should strictly construe the Constitution in light of the specifically enumerated fundamental rights, and such additional fundamental rights found deeply rooted in our coutry's history and traditions and, if people think they have gone too far, or not far enough, the Constitution can be changed by Amendment.

[stormylin]

Originally Posted by Prolix

But our system already has the answer, and you said it yourself Mulder - Amendment.

********************************************
Actually, I think Mulder stole this one from Stormylin -- Not really, of course, it is a fact I personally Love to hear, whoever is saying it!!!
********************************************

Rather than the justices giving deference to the legislature or the will of the people, they should strictly construe the Constitution in light of the specifically enumerated fundamental rights, and such additional fundamental rights found deeply rooted in our coutry's history and traditions and, if people think they have gone too far, or not far enough, the Constitution can be changed by Amendment.

Can we order some new icons around here? Because your statement like Mulder's deserves a HUGE applause!!!

Now, if we could get all attorney's to feel this way, and better yet, get them into office we would have a whole different world out here!! The fact is that some extremely high percentage of Senator's, I think it is around 96% or above are attorney's. And we know by the mess that (void) federal law is today most don't feel like you and Mulder do. (Like nearly none of them read the US Patriot Act when they voted on it ) I would be the first to be cheering if our Supreme Court had a majority of Justices that feel as you two do. Though, that is simply not a fact either. If these two things were true, the Libertarian dream would come true- that legislatures would put themselves out of a job.

Oh and btw, Prolix, I was wrong about my friend moving 'to' Henderson. Sorry I don't know the area very well. He moved 'from' Henderson to a little small town north of Los Vegas. You must have thought huh? because Henderson is quite densely populated and metropolitan. So, not much chance you would have ironically been his attorney.

Thanks for the enlightening posts!!

[sglv]

Originally Posted by stormylin

. . .
Now, if we could get all attorney's to feel this way, and better yet, get them into office we would have a whole different world out here!! . . . I would be the first to be cheering if our Supreme Court had a majority of Justices that feel as you two do.

FYI, Prolix would make an excellent Senator and/or Judge, but he won't even consider it - which is very, very sad.

[bassetman]

Originally Posted by Prolix
But our system already has the answer, and you said it yourself Mulder - Amendment.

********************************************
Actually, I think Mulder stole this one from Stormylin -- Not really, of course, it is a fact I personally Love to hear, whoever is saying it!!!
********************************************

Rather than the justices giving deference to the legislature or the will of the people, they should strictly construe the Constitution in light of the specifically enumerated fundamental rights, and such additional fundamental rights found deeply rooted in our coutry's history and traditions and, if people think they have gone too far, or not far enough, the Constitution can be changed by Amendment.


Excuse me!

Have you heard of "Checks and balances"?


Would you say that Congress should ignore the SC?

[plschwartz]

LAURENCE H. TRIBE
Alito's world

By Laurence H. Tribe | November 7, 2005

YOU CAN'T help doing a double-take when you read Judge Samuel Alito's opinion holding Congress powerless to compel states to provide family medical leave to their employees. It was a position the Supreme Court rejected in a nearly identical case when it held three years later that the 14th Amendment confers such power by authorizing Congress to enforce each state's duty to accord ''equal protection of the laws."

The evidence and legal arguments hadn't changed when Chief Justice William Rehnquist, writing for the 6-3 majority, saw what Congress had seen: that women and men are unequally protected in a world still shaped by the ''pervasive sex-role stereotype that caring for family members is women's work." The court accordingly held Congress empowered to ''dismantle persisting gender-based barriers to . . . women in the workplace." Why, then, did the deliberately deferential Alito, after reading the same text, history, precedents, and factual data, see no gender discrimination for Congress to dismantle?

This is a judge alert to the religious discrimination against Muslims and Lakota Indians lurking within facially neutral rules about wearing beards and raising bears. He is no Anatole France, praising the majestic equality of the law as it forbids rich and poor alike to beg in the streets and sleep under the bridges of Paris. The point isn't to fault this distinguished jurist for lacking the clairvoyance to predict what the Rehnquist court would shortly hold. But did one really need a crystal ball to detect the ''self-fulfilling cycle of discrimination" that relegated women to roles as ''primary family caregiver," fostering ''employers' stereotypical views about women's commitment to work and their value as employees?"...
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/edi...ations?mode=PF

[stormylin]

Originally Posted by sglv

FYI, Prolix would make an excellent Senator and/or Judge, but he won't even consider it - which is very, very sad.

SG, from what I have read thus far, it appears that you are correct. His points and answers are thoughtful. As well, he appears to take the time to go back and and reanalyze the facts before coming to a conclusion. We should be so lucky to have judges and Senators that are this responsible with our judicial system.

Of course, I prefer to recover the missing Amendment that states that a member of Congress can not be an attorney. For obvious reasons there is a critical purpose for this federal law. I have spent some time discussing this fact with a woman on another political list who had researched this for 20 years. (And other very informed individuals that this missing Amendment is a fact). I believe it was part of the XIII Amendment. In any event, again the federal government is designed to stay very limited in size and very basic. The latter because our system of law is designed for citizen legislatures. With all of this said, having it morph into a system in which you need 'experts' aka attorneys to 'translate' the language obviously has enabled it to become a system that most citizens are intimidated by. This is exactly one of the reasons it is 'technically' against federal law to have attorneys in Congress. Though the main reason according to the XIII Amendment was to prevent members of nobility from attaining office.

I found this source on the subject, http://www.uhuh.com/constitution/tona.htm

The source states: "The missing Amendment is referred to as TONA (Titles of Nobility) that states that All attorneys and judges who claim the title "esquire," a title of English nobility beneath knighthood and extended to professional men, are incapable of holding public office under the Amendment. If enforced, nearly half the legislators in office throughout America would be removed from office and stripped of their citizenship.

A partial list of influential Americans who have been "honorarily" knighted by the Queen of England include Henry Kissinger, Norman Schwarzkopf, Colin Powell, Casper Weinberger, Ronald Reagan, George Bush, Sr., Rudy Giullani and Alan Greenspan. If the real 13th Amendment were enforced those men would be stripped of their citizenship and would not be allowed to hold positions of public trust.

Sir Alan Greenspan is often referred to as the most powerful man in America because he is the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board -- the consortium of private international bankers who control the U.S. money supply".

So for the record, my husband states that this is nonsense. That the term esquire is just used as an honary title. I suspect Mulder, Prolix, and GB will hold his position. Though, I personally disagree. Titles of nobility that represent a monarchy and are obviously in direct conflict with everything the Founding Fathers designed with a Constitution which specifically prevents a system of Monarchy. I believe that it is necessary to look at all the positions, even if the 'experts' reject them as not legitimate sources.

I heard an interesting statement on Rome lastnight- a thought worth considering. A little background first: Pompei was a Tribune of Rome (the people's representative). Pompei was executed and subsequently Caesar rose to power and became an Emperor. Thus, in this change of events the Republic collapsed. To the point, Brutus's mother received Pompei's son when he went to her devasted by the events. He made passionate claims that under Caesar's rule, Rome had become a tyranny. Brutus stated that Pompei's son was insane or mad for these statements. Though Brutus's mother rejected his statements as madness. She described these statements of protest against a tyranny as sound legitimate points.

I considered the analogy of this to current events. Libertarians of course protest the legitamacy of the current federal system. They are passionate about retaining our legitmate federal system of law. Interestingly, virtually everytime a Libertarian gains any type of celebrity in which 'their words have the potential of being heard' they magically become 'nuts, crazy people, insane, or full of utter nonsense.' And as well, interestingly the public at large 'believes' for the most part, due to the media's method of yellow journalism that it is a fact that Libertarians are out in left field.

As well, the wealth of sources that critique or display that our federal government has abused power or flat out committed crimes are always attacked on the 'nonsense or insanity' claim. How convenient to use language that intimidates most people to even consider these sources in to believing that if they are interested in understanding the opposing positions, you too must be insane or clearly unbalanced. For instance sources that flat out have very detailed information that 9-11 was planned by our own U.S. government are always attacked, and not even logically. If you cite any of this information, the opposers use statements like that is utter nonsense, you are not even using your head, that is clearly preposterous, or you are out of your mind- and/or the sources are certainly Nuts and they went to jail 'didn't they?' Of course, we know there are clear facts that people that worked for government with access to information that would substantiate clear corruption Always get fired, and usually get arrested. The fact is, government does have a monopoly on force. Thus, anyone that presents evidence of corruption will most certainly go to jail or Worse!

With this said, 9-11 reports include statements from military experts that a plane Never hit the Pentagon. The width of the breach of the building was about 20 bricks wide. The width of a plane is some 37 feet. Clearly a plane would never fit in the relatively small hole that was in the Pentagon. Further, there is footage on-line that displays paper that magically survived a so called explosion of a plane. Fuel burns at several thousand degrees (I forget the specific temp) while paper burns at a little over 400 degrees. Thus, it is impossible for paper sustain temperatures that definitely would exist from a plane exploding. Military experts flat out state that the Pentagon was hit with a missle. Now, if we state that these reports from military experts should at least be considered thoughtfully, then we would conclude that our government is worse then a tyranny. If this theory were correct our government is controlled by a President who 'would be the one that is a Madman'. Further, if there is credibility to this position this would display that the government will stop at nothing to silence anyone that makes any progress at exposing how completely corrupt it is.

With all this said, there is too much evidence that government has committed extreme crimes for decades to just accept that 'all of this' is just nonsense. And btw, it is a Fact that the XVI Amendment was never ratified. Now would there be any motivation to 'lose' an Amendment that would remove most of Congress from their positions and/or completely reject that IRS laws are not enforceable? Btw, if this were proved the government would have to return all the money back to citizens from the inception period at which they started taking it. Even, if they were to 'fix' the Amendment and 'get it legally ratified', they would still have to return all of this money. Of course, it would be absolutely critical for government to Never allow this to become public information If it were a fact.

And for the record, Bill Benson was a former tax collector that exposed the XVI Amendment as invalid. He went to every state in the country to research the XVI Amendment. He has over 17000 pages of documentation to substantiate that the XVI Amendment was never ratified. Details of this can be found here: http://www.thelawthatneverwas.com/ Of course, He Went to Jail.

Currently, the fed is pursuing him again. They want a list of names of everyone that purchases his books. (I wonder why if what he has researched is a lie ) As well, the U.S. District court of Illinois is hauling him back to court for making false statements that the XVI Amendment was never ratified thus it is unenforceable. His attorney filed a motion to dismiss and has claimed that the court Must Prove that the XVI Amendment was ratified in order to charge him with these 'false claims'. I believe the case began again in July of 2005.

I suspect, this case will never be won. Though, I feel it is imperative to at least consider all of these cases in which there are serious challanges to what gov. reports to be legitimate.

Definitely off the beaten path of Prolix being a good choice to run for office or become a judge. I agree with your opinion. Though, I can't get past the fact that attorneys should never be legislatures. And still I believe it is in our best interest to understand that it is plausible this system that in place is not legitimate and completely unconstitutional.

[stormylin]

Originally Posted by bassetman

Originally Posted by Prolix
But our system already has the answer, and you said it yourself Mulder - Amendment.

********************************************
Actually, I think Mulder stole this one from Stormylin -- Not really, of course, it is a fact I personally Love to hear, whoever is saying it!!!
********************************************

Rather than the justices giving deference to the legislature or the will of the people, they should strictly construe the Constitution in light of the specifically enumerated fundamental rights, and such additional fundamental rights found deeply rooted in our coutry's history and traditions and, if people think they have gone too far, or not far enough, the Constitution can be changed by Amendment.


Excuse me!

Have you heard of "Checks and balances"?


Would you say that Congress should ignore the SC?

Am I missing something? If laws 'were' changed 'only' by an Amendment Congress would have to vote on each change, then it would need to be ratified by 2/3 of the states. That is definitely a system of checks and balances. Or am I missing the point The SC under federal law has no authority to change the Constitution. (Though, they do it all the time)

[stormylin]

Oops, I looked at the legal steps to change law by Amendment. Sorry, I get it. The SC legitimatly is part of the check and balance for the President and Congress (but not for changing the Constitution).

[bassetman]

Originally Posted by stormylin

Oops, I looked at the legal steps to change law by Amendment. Sorry, I get it. The SC legitimatly is part of the check and balance for the President and Congress (but not for changing the Constitution).

[stormylin]

Originally Posted by bassetman

Blonde thing

[GoneForNow]

Originally Posted by stormylin

So for the record, my husband states that this is nonsense. That the term esquire is just used as an honary title. I suspect Mulder, Prolix, and GB will hold his position. Though, I personally disagree. Titles of nobility that represent a monarchy and are obviously in direct conflict with everything the Founding Fathers designed with a Constitution that specifically prevents a system of Monarchy. I believe that it is necessary to look at all the positions, even if the 'experts' reject them as not legitimate sources.

Hate to break it to you but Esquire means Mister. You would address a letter to Chris Mulder, Esquire not Mr. Chris Mulder, Esquire. You'd be calling him Mister Mister. Same way as you don't address Dr. Harry Smith, MD, you'd be calling him Doctor Doctor. It is either Dr. Harry Smith or Harry Smith, MD. Your husband is half right.

But then again, he married you.....so the verdict is still out.

[stormylin]

Originally Posted by gbrumb

Hate to break it to you but Esquire means Mister. You would address a letter to Chris Mulder, Esquire not Mr. Chris Mulder, Esquire. You'd be calling him Mister Mister. Same way as you don't address Dr. Harry Smith, MD, you'd be calling him Doctor Doctor. It is either Dr. Harry Smith or Harry Smith, MD. Your husband is half right.

But then again, he married you.....so the verdict is still out.

Speaking of half right- from http://education.yahoo.com/reference.../entry/esquire

es·quire (skwr, -skwr) KEY

NOUN:

A man or boy who is a member of the gentry in England ranking directly below a knight.
Abbr. Esq. Used as an honorific usually in its abbreviated form, especially after the name of an attorney or a consular officer: Jane Doe, Esq.; John Doe, Esq.
In medieval times, a candidate for knighthood who served a knight as an attendant and a shield bearer.
Archaic An English country gentleman; a squire.

During the period that the Constitution was written and at the time the missing XIII Amendment addressed this, Esquire was still a Very English title for nobility.

(I missed the mister in that definition )