Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
At worst he was an upset taxpayer, not some deranged lunatic out for IRS employee blood.
And I'm sure he tried all the avenues before he went off the cliff. I believe that much.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
The interpretation period has long since past .. as common law relies on law of precedent, and the constitutional rulings of previous justices have covered most areas as that might pertain to what the founders intent of the law actually was. They are there now, primarily to apply constitutional principles and law to any new laws which might violate those established constitutional laws.
Those that do as you suggest, are rogue criminals who should be removed. As an example, the 2nd Amendment is clear ... there is no longer room for "interpretation". It's already been decided. Justices not observing this are behaving in a criminal fashion.
What you suggest is that we are in fact ruled by a dictatorship of 9 SC Justices, which is just not the case, and was certainly not the intent of the founding fathers and their well established and painstaking efforts to separate and balance powers.
The Founders would never agree with your statement that Justices appointed (not elected) hold such power solely in their hands and their judgement. They are bound by the constitution, and the historic rulings of all preceding justices and their rulings, and consequently must observe reasonable consistency to those established laws.
First off, just an upset tax payer???....he flew an airplane into a government building!!!! If he were Muslim you know exactly what this would have been called.
Secondly, the Constitution states that the President, with the advice and Consent of the Senate shall appoint the Justices to the Supreme Court. They are allowed to interpret the Constitution anyway the majority of them decide, along with the rest of your statement.
The interpretation period has long since past .. as common law relies on law of precedent, and the constitutional rulings of previous justices have covered most areas as that might pertain to what the founders intent of the law actually was. They are there now, primarily to apply constitutional principles and law to any new laws which might violate those established constitutional laws.
Those that do as you suggest, are rogue criminals who should be removed. As an example, the 2nd Amendment is clear ... there is no longer room for "interpretation". It's already been decided. Justices not observing this are behaving in a criminal fashion.
What you suggest is that we are in fact ruled by a dictatorship of 9 SC Justices, which is just not the case, and was certainly not the intent of the founding fathers and their well established and painstaking efforts to separate and balance powers.
The Founders would never agree with your statement that Justices appointed (not elected) hold such power solely in their hands and their judgement. They are bound by the constitution, and the historic rulings of all preceding justices and their rulings, and consequently must observe reasonable consistency to those established laws.
For once I agree with what you say, GuyNTexas. With the exception that we are ruled by a dictatorship of 9 SC Justices. The Constitution is our nation's foundation document. All laws of the legislature are predicated upon working within the framework of this hallowed document. The interpretation of the laws being constitutional or not is determined by the Justice Dept. the final arbitor being the SC. That was my only point. That's the way we set up our system of government. Previous rulings do hold sway but are only benchmarks in the road to constitutional justice. Every lawyer who goes to trial in constitutional matters uses these previous decisions to base his or her case either for or against their arguement. But it's the judges who determine the merits of the arguements and decides. Just look at the prior cases that were presented by both sides in the Heller decision concerning the 2nd. In the end, what is constitutional is constantly being interpreted by the SC. It's their job. It's what we appointed them to do. That's my only point. Kitchen table lawyers constantly say the constitution means this or it means that. Truth is, the constitution means whatever the Supreme Court says it means.
Those of us who cherish freedom know that the Constitution and Declaration of Independence lets us know that certain rights and freedoms are granted by GOD and not another man.
Maybe this is why the Tea Party movement is gaining such steam. They believe in those inalienble rights granted by GOD and not some clown in an Ivory tower with an ugly dog.
Could we be witnessing GOOD vs. EVIL in action?
Why such an attack on the Constitution.?
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4Horsemen
Not so fast. are you breathing? your heart/lungs was not created or jump started by man or evolution or you would be dead by now. God was your only mechanic/fabricator.
[...]
Now, your turn. prove to me that there 'isn't' a GOD.
[...]
don't stop there. keep going back until you run out of ancestors, and then tell us what do you have?
I for one am still waiting for that specific proof of this god's existence, dear 4Horsemen and/or Barry.
The above obviously doesn't qualify as such, and if we're having a discussion about how our rights are god- or man-given, I'd suggest we first check if those two options are viable:
man-given: viable, man exists
god-given: as of now, unviable, still awaiting that proof.
No, honest science is proving Darwin to be a major hack,
Even if this had been true - which it isn't - Darwin was anything but a hack. He lacked a lot of the facts we now have in biology, but his basic insight was sound then and is sound today. Did he get a lot of details wrong? Sure. New facts pop up and theories are adjusted.
You might as well make fun of Newton for not understanding relativity.
[quotw]given the continuos discoveries of new archeological findings showing modern man coexisting with earlier man,[/quote]
Which has done nothing to disprove evolution.
Quote:
among other findings that show advancements in the human species could not have occurred in the timeframes found by pure evolution.
Which accredited universities have published this research? It's Nobel material, if true.
Quote:
The evidence of intelligent design has been accumulating rapidly,
Not really, no. The gaps you need to stuff the creator into have grown smaller and smaller.
Quote:
much to the dismay of the modern day liberals
Ah. You were so close, and then it slipped: Intelligent Design is political, not scientific. An assessment that I entirely agree with. So do most of the "design proponents" - they were even kind enough to provide us with the wedge document etc.
Quote:
And I might suggest to you that education is a lifelong effort, as such doesn't stop upon graduation of high school. That is barely the beginning.
That is very good advice. Anyone thinking that the modern ToE is seriously threatened, scientifically, by Intelligent Design needs to heed it.
A couple of responses, using Darwin's information to justify today's creationism would be like using 1857 theories of flight to design a modern aircraft.
This is a classic case of "Better to sit quietly and let people wonder if you're stupid, than to open your mouth and confirm the suspicion".
A couple of corrections ... Darwin was an evolutionist, smart guy, not a creationist, so his information was NEVER used to justify creation. Though this response might qualify you for a Darwin Award.
And, just an FYI (that stands for: For Your Information) the theory of what makes airplanes stay aloft and not come crashing to the ground hasn't changed at all ... same then as it is now.
You must be a liberal. Everything is backwards with you people.
No, honest science is proving Darwin to be a major hack, given the continuos discoveries of new archeological findings showing modern man coexisting with earlier man, among other findings that show advancements in the human species could not have occurred in the timeframes found by pure evolution.
No honest science is proving Darwin to be a major hack, given the continuous discoveries of new archeological findings showing modern man coexisting with earlier man, among other findings that show advancements in the human species could not have occurred in the timeframes found by pure evolution.
Natural selection.
The birds with the short beaks became extinct after a 3-year drought, while the birds with the long beaks survived the drought by having the capability to poke deep enough to get the worms.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Amendment 3 - Quartering of Soldiers. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment 6 - Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses. Ratified 12/15/1791.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Amendment 7 - Trial by Jury in Civil Cases. Ratified 12/15/1791.
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Amendment 8 - Cruel and Unusual Punishment. Ratified 12/15/1791.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Though this response might qualify you for a Darwin Award.
