Political Discussion

[justbroke]

onwards is right int he analysis that it comes down to framing just what defines life and whether an unborn person is actually, a life. They even through in "potential" life too. And the Constitution does guarantee life and the pursuit of it, so that's the argument.

If you think I'm wrong... just think back to slavery. The constitution, as posted shortly ago, reads that all mean are created equal. Yet, why did black men not have the same constitutional rights? Well, they figured that a black man wasn't a "real" man. He was only 3/5ths of a man. Therefore, the Constitutional protection didn't apply.

I mean, seriously, this is how our Constitution is sliced and diced and it will continue to happen. This is why I support statutes and laws that actual define the terms that they use, within the Statute. Otherwise, the Judges will continue to interpret the meaning, or parse the words and leave everyone guessing.

[AngelinaCatHub]

I'm a firm belief that Senators should be limited to two terms just like the President, I also though believe we should repeal the 17th amendment and have them elected by state legislatures again rather than by popular vote. It would help restore the balance of power between states and federal power.

I agree 100%. Here's the problem, when the rules work for "us" (as they did for T. Kennedy) that is fine, when not, change them, when that doesn't work, change them back. This time, they lost their @$$. Too bad for "TED KENNEDY'S" ""SEAT"". You know, the once champion swimmer and respecter of women, connoisseur of fine wines, good foods under the table, especially "sandwiches" shared with Dodd.

The States sold their right to a 'Check and Balance' with appointed Senators. Reason, they wanted more than their share of the Washington money for their State. Another Control issue out of D.C. on both parties in that if you don't do it "MY WAY" we won't pay you your share. Example Carters 55mph or we cut your road money off. ETC! 'Hub

[justbroke]

Example Carters 55mph or we cut your road money off.

At least that was outright bribery. Now, they practice extortion.

Wow... "champion swimmer"... I don't think too many would understand the point you were making with that, but that was almost Milleresque. I think if you wrote "champion swimmer of Chappaquiddick", more people would have got the subtle hint.

[onwards]

Justbroke,

You have just explained why judicial activism is a necessary part of society; there is simply no way that one man's interpretation of the constitution should be favored over another's. However, since progress brings challenges that could not possibly have been foreseen by the folks who the document in the first place, for the benefit of society at large, a mechanism must be found to settle these issues.

Hence the supreme court.

There really is no avoiding it. There is on way to "nail things down" so they "remain fixed", because we today have no clue what the world will look like 100 years down the road either. So we use a pretty well-balanced system to surface some of us into a highly distinguished group (supreme court judges) that ends up sorting these problems out as they come along, trying their best to represent society as it is at any given time. It's somewhat akin to the notion of tribal elders really.

onwards is right int he analysis that it comes down to framing just what defines life and whether an unborn person is actually, a life. They even through in "potential" life too. And the Constitution does guarantee life and the pursuit of it, so that's the argument.

If you think I'm wrong... just think back to slavery. The constitution, as posted shortly ago, reads that all mean are created equal. Yet, why did black men not have the same constitutional rights? Well, they figured that a black man wasn't a "real" man. He was only 3/5ths of a man. Therefore, the Constitutional protection didn't apply.

I mean, seriously, this is how our Constitution is sliced and diced and it will continue to happen. This is why I support statutes and laws that actual define the terms that they use, within the Statute. Otherwise, the Judges will continue to interpret the meaning, or parse the words and leave everyone guessing.

[justbroke]

There really is no avoiding it. There is on way to "nail things down" so they "remain fixed", because we today have no clue what the world will look like 100 years down the road either.

Actually, there is. The mechanism is called modifying or repealing the law that is ambiguous or unconstitutional in it's current form. I really don't care about judicial activism as it's a necessary evil of poorly crafted legislation. However, I say that I applaud it when it is used to state the obvious to the legislature(s) that they wrote the law and the underlying ambiguity allowed the ruling.

Yes, the Supreme court sorts out the inequities, but as we've seen, the most controversial of topics almost always results in a 5-4 split. So that means at least half the populace will always be upset about the outcome. Just see Bush V. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000) for a truly earth-shattering decision, although they found 7-2 that what Florida was doing was wrong, the remedy, stopping the recount, was monumental.

I think the U.S. Supreme Court is a special case and is the last line of defense of the Constitution. However, it doesn't require judicial activism to change how the Constitution is "implemented". It is implemented through the U.S. Code amongst other laws and regulations. Whether those laws and regulations are "constitutional"... is fact specific and I would hope that the legislature (and legislatures) would amend, revise, or even repeal laws as our nation changes over time. If the revised or repeal law violates the Constitution, that law should be struck down and then a campaign mounted to amend the Constitution, as necessary.

However, I can't stand by and ignore the Constitution because it's old. You are very right that four fathers (just kidding)... forefathers... knew that they didn't know everything or could foresee everything, so they allowed the Constitution to be modified by amendment. We are so stuck in political fanfare these days, that the phrase "requires a Constitutional amendment to get that done" is akin to saying "that will never happen". That is a shame.

[onwards]

Yes, the Supreme court sorts out the inequities, but as we've seen, the most controversial of topics almost always results in a 5-4 split. So that means at least half the populace will always be upset about the outcome. Just see Bush V. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000) for a truly earth-shattering decision, although they found 7-2 that what Florida was doing was wrong, the remedy, stopping the recount, was monumental.

That's an excellent point, although I wonder if it doesn't fall under the same criteria; that is, our society has become much polarized, and so has the supreme court. It makes a strange kind of sense.

[OhioFiler]

onwards is right int he analysis that it comes down to framing just what defines life and whether an unborn person is actually, a life. They even through in "potential" life too. And the Constitution does guarantee life and the pursuit of it, so that's the argument.

If you think I'm wrong... just think back to slavery. The constitution, as posted shortly ago, reads that all mean are created equal. Yet, why did black men not have the same constitutional rights? Well, they figured that a black man wasn't a "real" man. He was only 3/5ths of a man. Therefore, the Constitutional protection didn't apply.

I mean, seriously, this is how our Constitution is sliced and diced and it will continue to happen. This is why I support statutes and laws that actual define the terms that they use, within the Statute. Otherwise, the Judges will continue to interpret the meaning, or parse the words and leave everyone guessing.

The 3/5th was placed in to protect the northern states so that southern blacks didn't affect the population and dominate the legislature. It was the ANTI-slavery folks who chose the 3/5ths designation.

The issue of abortion, specifically Roe -v- Wade, is not an issue of when life begins. It is really an issue of the federal government usurping the powers of the individual states. The legality of abortion should be determined at the state level by each state independently.

[backtoschool]

The 3/5th was placed in to protect the northern states so that southern blacks didn't affect the population and dominate the legislature. It was the ANTI-slavery folks who chose the 3/5ths designation.

The issue of abortion, specifically Roe -v- Wade, is not an issue of when life begins. It is really an issue of the federal government usurping the powers of the individual states. The legality of abortion should be determined at the state level by each state independently.

Now who is tweaking whom?

To all who are participating on this thread: I am SO sorry I brought up abortion! Please ban me if I ever digress again.

As to Roe vs Wade, well it is the classic case of an activist Supreme Court, and we could debate literally forever whether the Supreme Court should be activist or not.

Obviously, as a liberal woman, I am for Roe vs Wade, but I also believe that there is nothing in the Constitution to support Roe vs Wade and that the decision was an activist decision.

[backtoschool]

You can't pick and choose my intended meaning!

I meant Obama the Great had a blank resume. His wife has a salary increase of nearly $200K on her resume after her hubby was elected senator. Her resume is flattering.

I would agree with you OF that Obama does not have the experience to be president. I would not call his resume "blank" though. He was the first black to head the Harvard law review, he is a Harvard educated lawyer and professor, and he has as much experience as many people who get elected to the Senate. (although Scott Brown is undeniably sexy and gorgeous, I am not sure his resume as a nude Cosmo model and a state politician is any less "blank" than Obama's was when he was elected to the Senate.)

[dakota112]

When Nouriel Roubini talks, people should listen, and he says we are in for a hell of a ride this year in the usa and world. This could be the year the market collapses.

[maxwell18]

I want to see all the people in government fall under all the same programs we the normal people fall under. Example they should be made to have SS and the same health benifits we have. How long would it take for them to fix medicare and other programs that they rip off? I just love people like Barney Franks he is a fine example of a leader.
Retired Military

[dakota112]

I'm not happy about this but I just feel it in my veins; this economy is going to rapidly deteriorate, unemployment will approach 25%, stagnant wages, markets will decline 50% and sadly social unrest and Martial Law will need to be put in place to quell the unrest and all the while we will hear from our glorious leaders and Obama that Bush caused this mess and one day ( after our generation dies out ) things might get better. I am preparing for the worst now and plan to just hunker down and let things play out as they may. I have no say in this mess.

[AngelinaCatHub]

I would agree with you OF that Obama does not have the experience to be president. I would not call his resume "blank" though. He was the first black to head the Harvard law review, he is a Harvard educated lawyer and professor, and he has as much experience as many people who get elected to the Senate. (although Scott Brown is undeniably sexy and gorgeous, I am not sure his resume as a nude Cosmo model and a state politician is any less "blank" than Obama's was when he was elected to the Senate.)

LOL! Now BTS, you are too nice and wise to be a true Liberal. You know better. I enjoyed this post.

Let's face it, 'Bammy bit off more than he can chew. He reads speeches just fine. If you cannot see his agenda, total cradle to grave "help", commonly called Socialism, I would be surprised.

Please do not get me wrong here.....I am a registered Dem. I hated Bush except the necessary policy in the Afghanistan war. His attack on Iraq was simply to finish his father's Eff up. Another dope. BTW there were weapons of messy destruction. We just saw exicution of one who used them against his own nations people.

'Bammy is leading us not only into a Major Depression, but now that I hear the Chinese are pizzed orf about us selling Taiwan modern weapons the Chinese can take us down simply by calling their debt in. How did we break up USSR? We caused them to go bk. 'Hub

[AngelinaCatHub]

I'm not happy about this but I just feel it in my veins; this economy is going to rapidly deteriorate, unemployment will approach 25%, stagnant wages, markets will decline 50% and sadly social unrest and Martial Law will need to be put in place to quell the unrest and all the while we will hear from our glorious leaders and Obama that Bush caused this mess and one day ( after our generation dies out ) things might get better. I am preparing for the worst now and plan to just hunker down and let things play out as they may. I have no say in this mess.

I surely agree. Once past 20%, we are into Depression. It gets closer day by day except in the PresBO's head. You are new here. I guess I am now and "old timer" as I am here more than a year, LOL. Can all of us not see the vast increase of newbies???? How 'bout those who have not found this site????

This site could not service those who are down and out and don't even own a computer. We are fortunate. We have each other. 'Hub

[AngelinaCatHub]

I want to see all the people in government fall under all the same programs we the normal people fall under. Example they should be made to have SS and the same health benifits we have. How long would it take for them to fix medicare and other programs that they rip off? I just love people like Barney Franks he is a fine example of a leader.
Retired Military

Don't hold your breath. Don't you realize that all people are considered equal under the law??? Well, except for those who make law. THEY are 'special'.

I agree, but never will happen. A perk they get for lying their way into office. Term limits are the solution. Watch 'Bammy whap that amendment for Pres.

Oh yes, the Supreme Court, now made obsolete by the PresBO belittling them. An equal part of the "Checks and Balance". EQUAL I cannot scream it enough. But what the heck, respect is demanded at the Executive level but denied in the Judicial level. Of course, not too many respect the Legislative as they have earned their disrespect. 'Hub