Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Civil Rights > Gay and Lesbian Rights

Gay and Lesbian Rights Gay and Lesbian Political Rights Forum - For topics and discussions about LGBT


Thanks Tree54Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old January 13th, 2016, 01:46 PM   #51
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: California
Posts: 18,037
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hollywood View Post
Oh really? And just what is your training in either American law and/ot Constitutional; law?
One year of Constitutional law. Had to drop out in my second year because of health reasons. I was working towards a degree in Constitutional law. It didn't take me long to figure out that modern Constitutional law has little to do with the Constitution.
Thanks from excalibur
caconservative is offline  
Old January 13th, 2016, 02:07 PM   #52
Senior Member
 
Hollywood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Memphis, Tn.
Posts: 21,837
Quote:
Originally Posted by caconservative View Post
One year of Constitutional law. Had to drop out in my second year because of health reasons. I was working towards a degree in Constitutional law. It didn't take me long to figure out that modern Constitutional law has little to do with the Constitution.
that's it. ONE year of Constitutionals law?
And you think that qualifies you to second guess the SCOTUS?
You have a personal opinion concerning their rulings, perhaps a bit more qualified than the guy that cuts my lawn.
What a joke.
Hollywood is offline  
Old January 13th, 2016, 02:28 PM   #53
Senior Member
 
Nwolfe35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Posts: 15,818
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hollywood View Post
that's it. ONE year of Constitutionals law?
And you think that qualifies you to second guess the SCOTUS?
You have a personal opinion concerning their rulings, perhaps a bit more qualified than the guy that cuts my lawn.
What a joke.
The "law experts" on DTT love to denigrate others for "using the Google" to get information. They believe their "education" allows them to pontificate and no one is allowed to criticize them because we lack the education and experience.

Using that logic jimmy and the rest can't criticize the courts that ruled against them since they, in turn, lack the education and experience of a Supreme Court Justice.
Nwolfe35 is offline  
Old January 13th, 2016, 03:28 PM   #54
Senior Member
 
Jimmyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Earth
Posts: 38,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nwolfe35 View Post
The "law experts" on DTT love to denigrate others for "using the Google" to get information. They believe their "education" allows them to pontificate and no one is allowed to criticize them because we lack the education and experience.

Using that logic jimmy and the rest can't criticize the courts that ruled against them since they, in turn, lack the education and experience of a Supreme Court Justice.
You have it exactly backwards. You make a post with how a court ruled, and then start with your whining and denigrating when the merits of your post are challenged.

You are denigrated because you engage in matters of the law and produce no arguments. Going to Google and reading that a court ruled x to x and using that as an argument on the merits of the ruling is worthy of being denigrated. That is a news headline, not an argument on the merits.

Your mentioning lacking the education and experience is a joke. Justices are not on the court because they won a tournament on their knowledge of the law.

Your problem is you think you are immune from defending the merits and constitutional basis of the rulings you post on this subject. You know nothing regarding the subject because you do not want to understand the subject, but you want to whine and moan about your lack of being able to defend what you post.
Jimmyb is offline  
Old January 13th, 2016, 04:05 PM   #55
Senior Member
 
Asimov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1,881
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nwolfe35 View Post
The "law experts" on DTT love to denigrate others for "using the Google" to get information. They believe their "education" allows them to pontificate and no one is allowed to criticize them because we lack the education and experience.

Using that logic jimmy and the rest can't criticize the courts that ruled against them since they, in turn, lack the education and experience of a Supreme Court Justice.
Google is not a website or a source of information. It is just a search engine. But Google can open a dozen different primary sources where you can read the exact Court Report word-for-word, or you can read a summary and analysis by a someone qualified in law. There is nothing wrong with using Google to help find authoritative discussion of the law.

What concerns me a bit is the non-experts' love affair with original intent. The world we live in has changed so drastically in the last 250 years that 1) original intent is often too narrow to be useful in dealing with today's issues; 2) original intent is a vague and debatable concept in itself. If anything, "original intent" varied from one founder to another, and even they were uncertain and often hostile towards political opposition in drafting the wording of the Constitution. Hamilton, one of the key Federalists backers of the original document--WITHOUT a Bill of Rights, I might add--believed the States were irrelevant and should be done away with. How's THAT for original intent to protect the precious inviolable powers of the States?

Lincoln understood this when he took on the institution of slavery, which conservatives of his day argued vehemently was protected by the "original intent" of the Constitution. Should we repeal the 13th Amendment because it violates "original intent" as evidenced by congressional passage of the 3/5ths Compromise. Read Calhoun: Exposition and Protest, 1828. He explains very clearly how in his learned opinion the Constitution was invoked to protect slavery in the Southern States.
Thanks from waitingtables and RNG
Asimov is offline  
Old January 13th, 2016, 04:15 PM   #56
Senior Member
 
Jimmyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Earth
Posts: 38,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asimov View Post
Google is not a website or a source of information. It is just a search engine. But Google can open a dozen different primary sources where you can read the exact Court Report word-for-word, or you can read a summary and analysis by a someone qualified in law. There is nothing wrong with using Google to help find authoritative discussion of the law.

What concerns me a bit is the non-experts' love affair with original intent. The world we live in has changed so drastically in the last 250 years that 1) original intent is often too narrow to be useful in dealing with today's issues; 2) original intent is a vague and debatable concept in itself. If anything, "original intent" varied from one founder to another, and even they were uncertain and often hostile towards political opposition in drafting the wording of the Constitution. Hamilton, one of the key Federalists backers of the original document--WITHOUT a Bill of Rights, I might add--believed the States were irrelevant and should be done away with. How's THAT for original intent to protect the precious inviolable powers of the States?

Lincoln understood this when he took on the institution of slavery, which conservatives of his day argued vehemently was protected by the "original intent" of the Constitution. Should we repeal the 13th Amendment because it violates "original intent" as evidenced by congressional passage of the 3/5ths Compromise. Read Calhoun: Exposition and Protest, 1828. He explains very clearly how in his learned opinion the Constitution was invoked to protect slavery in the Southern States.
I do not agree with this assessment. If you do not know what you do not know, then you have no ideal what to look for, and nothing to measure what you find against. There has to be an unbiased baseline to start with to fully understand the concepts of the Constitution, and that would require years and years of reading the influences of Madison, each deputies notes, every word of the state's ratifying conventions, each persons letters and speeches on the subject, a thorough understanding of the lineage and history of where the concepts came from, a thorough understanding of history, which requires the same path as I listed above regarding constitutional law.

There is no room for intellectual laziness.

Quote:
What concerns me a bit is the non-experts' love affair with original intent.
Can you clarify this statement.
Jimmyb is offline  
Old January 13th, 2016, 04:46 PM   #57
Senior Member
 
Asimov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1,881
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmyb View Post
I do not agree with this assessment. If you do not know what you do not know, then you have no ideal what to look for, and nothing to measure what you find against. There has to be an unbiased baseline to start with to fully understand the concepts of the Constitution, and that would require years and years of reading the influences of Madison, each deputies notes, every word of the state's ratifying conventions, each persons letters and speeches on the subject, a thorough understanding of the lineage and history of where the concepts came from, a thorough understanding of history, which requires the same path as I listed above regarding constitutional law. There is no room for intellectual laziness.

Can you clarify this statement.
Okay, okay. It DOES help to read the Federalist Papers to help get a better understanding of Hamilton's, Jay's, and Madison's perspectives, which they all seem to share. It also helps to read the transcripts of the ratification debates, especially Virginia and New York. But one doesn't need to read everything to grasp what these people are saying, any more than one needs to read every single courtroom transcript to have a solid grasp of the law. But yes, most Americans for being so opinionated, are woefully ignorant of what the Constitution actually says, and more ignorant of how it is applied by the courts.

In a survey taken in the late 90's, 50% of Americans questioned could NOT name the three branches of the Federal Government. And about half of them didn't know that there are 3 branches.

As far as clarifying my statement, I recall Robert Bork's battle with the Senate Judiciary Committee, and his almost one-on-one verbal dispute with Chairman Joe Biden over original intent. Bork went down in flames in the confirmation hearings because of his rigid affinity for turning back the clock in a quest for original intent. In the end, Reagan was forced to nominate Rehnquist instead. Do you recall the hearings?
Thanks from waitingtables
Asimov is offline  
Old January 13th, 2016, 05:01 PM   #58
Senior Member
 
Nwolfe35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Posts: 15,818
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmyb View Post
I do not agree with this assessment. If you do not know what you do not know, then you have no ideal what to look for, and nothing to measure what you find against. There has to be an unbiased baseline to start with to fully understand the concepts of the Constitution, and that would require years and years of reading the influences of Madison, each deputies notes, every word of the state's ratifying conventions, each persons letters and speeches on the subject, a thorough understanding of the lineage and history of where the concepts came from, a thorough understanding of history, which requires the same path as I listed above regarding constitutional law.

There is no room for intellectual laziness.



Can you clarify this statement.
Yours is NOT an "unbiased baseline" and there is the problem in discussing anything with you. You start with the assumption that the founders wanted a government founded on Judeo Christian ideals (whatever the hell "Judeo Christian" means) and then do everything you can to twist things to get the result you want.
Nwolfe35 is offline  
Old January 13th, 2016, 05:02 PM   #59
Senior Member
 
Jimmyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Earth
Posts: 38,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asimov View Post
Okay, okay. It DOES help to read the Federalist Papers to help get a better understanding of Hamilton's, Jay's, and Madison's perspectives, which they all seem to share. It also helps to read the transcripts of the ratification debates, especially Virginia and New York. But one doesn't need to read everything to grasp what these people are saying, any more than one needs to read every single courtroom transcript to have a solid grasp of the law. But yes, most Americans for being so opinionated, are woefully ignorant of what the Constitution actually says, and more ignorant of how it is applied by the courts.

In a survey taken in the late 90's, 50% of Americans questioned could NOT name the three branches of the Federal Government. And about half of them didn't know that there are 3 branches.

As far as clarifying my statement, I recall Robert Bork's battle with the Senate Judiciary Committee, and his almost one-on-one verbal dispute with Chairman Joe Biden over original intent. Bork went down in flames in the confirmation hearings because of his rigid affinity for turning back the clock in a quest for original intent. In the end, Reagan was forced to nominate Rehnquist instead.
It goes far beyond the Federalist Papers. The direct link to the Magna Carta, Coke, the Bible, English common law, etc. regarding the structure, and basis of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Bork made Biden look like someone who was kicked out of school for plagerism, which he was. The difference between the two was a living Constitution (Biden), which is antithetical to a written Constitution (Bork), and the rule of law (Bork), which is antithetical to a living Constitution (Biden).
Jimmyb is offline  
Old January 13th, 2016, 05:05 PM   #60
Senior Member
 
Jimmyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Earth
Posts: 38,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nwolfe35 View Post
Yours is NOT an "unbiased baseline" and there is the problem in discussing anything with you. You start with the assumption that the founders wanted a government founded on Judeo Christian ideals (whatever the hell "Judeo Christian" means) and then do everything you can to twist things to get the result you want.
I have never said that nor have I used that term in that context.

Go goggle a court ruling.
Jimmyb is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Civil Rights > Gay and Lesbian Rights

Tags
judicial activism, real, talk



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Whew!!!! Talk About "Cold-Blooded"!!! Medicine Man Current Events 1 May 8th, 2014 03:41 PM
It's time for "Real Change" WE start at the top, and "trickle down"! intangible child Current Events 0 February 14th, 2014 09:03 AM
The Real Story Behind Bill Gates And "Death Panels" Dude111 Healthcare 1 October 3rd, 2010 08:17 PM
CT Gov. denounces judicial activism on homosexual marriage garysher Gay and Lesbian Rights 166 October 18th, 2008 03:31 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.