On abortion
-
John Carson wrote:
It is not strictly true that the US has no abortion legislation. What is true is that the Supreme Court has constrained what legislation is allowed. You still have parental notification laws and a ban on partial birth abortion, for example.
I will conceed that point. There are laws that address abortion in a tangential manner.
John Carson wrote:
What distinguishes the US from Australia and the UK is that the abortion ruling in the US is a Constitutional ruling, which trumps any legislative intent. In Australia and the UK, by contrast, the courts were interpreting ordinary legislation, not the Constitution, and hence it was open to the legislature to pass new legislation to either clarify or modify their intent. The legislatures have done this to varying extents in the UK and the different Australian states. Given the current Constitutional interpretation, the "courage" of the US legislatures is largely beside the point. It is out of their hands.
However, that statement is fraught with ignorance of the US constitutional system. The courts do not have the authority to take anything out of the hands of the legislature unless the legislature has placed the issue in the constitution in the first place. The constitution belongs to the people, not to the courts. It is ours, not theirs. The congress is the ultimate law of the land, not the courts. This is a case where the courts have entirely stepped past their constitutional bounds. If the courts can make anything up as they go, there is no need for either of the other two branches of government to even exist. Hell, there is no reason to have democracy at all. With Roe V Wade, the courts made law, they did not interpret anything that is actually stated in the constitution. To claim otherwise is to declare the courts as the be all end all of the American system of government. They are not.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
However, that statement is fraught with ignorance of the US constitutional system.
No, it means that I accept the prevailing position in the US, which is that the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of the meaning of the Constitution and hence of the Constitutionality of any laws passed by the legislature. I realise that you cling to a contrary view, but your view has not been accepted since Marbury v. Madison in 1803. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison[^]
John Carson
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
However, that statement is fraught with ignorance of the US constitutional system.
No, it means that I accept the prevailing position in the US, which is that the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of the meaning of the Constitution and hence of the Constitutionality of any laws passed by the legislature. I realise that you cling to a contrary view, but your view has not been accepted since Marbury v. Madison in 1803. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison[^]
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
I realise that you cling to a contrary view, but your view has not been accepted since Marbury v. Madison in 1803.
Stan is not willing to concede that possibility that it is later than 1800 yet.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
However, that statement is fraught with ignorance of the US constitutional system.
No, it means that I accept the prevailing position in the US, which is that the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of the meaning of the Constitution and hence of the Constitutionality of any laws passed by the legislature. I realise that you cling to a contrary view, but your view has not been accepted since Marbury v. Madison in 1803. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison[^]
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
I realise that you cling to a contrary view, but your view has not been accepted since Marbury v. Madison in 1803.
Well, now that we have seen that the consequencies of that decision fully validates Jefferson's original concerns, perhaps it is time to reconsider it. What the precedent of roe v wade actually says is "We are the supreme court, no matter what the constitution actually says, it means only what we say it means." That has gone far past judicial review to become blatant judicial tyranny. Which, btw, is precisely why it is so important to leftists around the world such as yourself. It was the most obvious chink in our Jeffersonian armor. Jeffersonian democracy's achilles heel.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
modified on Saturday, January 24, 2009 7:38 PM
-
John Carson wrote:
I realise that you cling to a contrary view, but your view has not been accepted since Marbury v. Madison in 1803.
Stan is not willing to concede that possibility that it is later than 1800 yet.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
"I believe in my neighbors. I know their faults, and I know that their virtues far outweigh their faults. Just be sure the supreme court keeps any real power out of their hands, eh? What a fucking joke.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
John Carson wrote:
I realise that you cling to a contrary view, but your view has not been accepted since Marbury v. Madison in 1803.
Well, now that we have seen that the consequencies of that decision fully validates Jefferson's original concerns, perhaps it is time to reconsider it. What the precedent of roe v wade actually says is "We are the supreme court, no matter what the constitution actually says, it means only what we say it means." That has gone far past judicial review to become blatant judicial tyranny. Which, btw, is precisely why it is so important to leftists around the world such as yourself. It was the most obvious chink in our Jeffersonian armor. Jeffersonian democracy's achilles heel.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
modified on Saturday, January 24, 2009 7:38 PM
Stan Shannon wrote:
That has gone far past judicial review to become blatant judicial tyranny. Which, btw, is precisely why it is so important to leftists around the world such as yourself.
The idea that judicial activism in the US is "important to leftists around the world" is pure fantasy and part of your paranoia. Most "leftists around the world" would be barely aware of how the US system works in this respect and "let the judges rule" is certainly not a traditional leftist catchcry.
John Carson
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
That has gone far past judicial review to become blatant judicial tyranny. Which, btw, is precisely why it is so important to leftists around the world such as yourself.
The idea that judicial activism in the US is "important to leftists around the world" is pure fantasy and part of your paranoia. Most "leftists around the world" would be barely aware of how the US system works in this respect and "let the judges rule" is certainly not a traditional leftist catchcry.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
The idea that judicial activism in the US is "important to leftists around the world" is pure fantasy and part of your paranoia.
So you're saying that you are a figment of my imagination? Wow. Thats a relief...
John Carson wrote:
"let the judges rule" is certainly not a traditional leftist catchcry.
No, but it obviously works pretty well in a pinch given the appropriate judges. There is only one reason Roe v Wade is so important. The left knew full well that it would be an issue that Christian society at large could not dismiss. They would have to oppose it. That allowed the left to create a legal wedge between the US government and Christianity which simply had never existed before. Christianity had to take a position against an issue which, as poorly reasoned as it was, was framed in constitutional precident. For the first time in American history Christianity was pried loose from the national society itself, and was thrown onto the defensive. It was one of the most brilliant master strokes in political history.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
John Carson wrote:
The idea that judicial activism in the US is "important to leftists around the world" is pure fantasy and part of your paranoia.
So you're saying that you are a figment of my imagination? Wow. Thats a relief...
John Carson wrote:
"let the judges rule" is certainly not a traditional leftist catchcry.
No, but it obviously works pretty well in a pinch given the appropriate judges. There is only one reason Roe v Wade is so important. The left knew full well that it would be an issue that Christian society at large could not dismiss. They would have to oppose it. That allowed the left to create a legal wedge between the US government and Christianity which simply had never existed before. Christianity had to take a position against an issue which, as poorly reasoned as it was, was framed in constitutional precident. For the first time in American history Christianity was pried loose from the national society itself, and was thrown onto the defensive. It was one of the most brilliant master strokes in political history.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
There is only one reason Roe v Wade is so important. The left knew full well that it would be an issue that Christian society at large could not dismiss. They would have to oppose it. That allowed the left to create a legal wedge between the US government and Christianity which simply had never existed before. Christianity had to take a position against an issue which, as poorly reasoned as it was, was framed in constitutional precident. For the first time in American history Christianity was pried loose from the national society itself, and was thrown onto the defensive. It was one of the most brilliant master strokes in political history.
Just paranoia. 1. The issue was abortion, not Christianity. 2. Winning through the legislature rather than the courts would have been just as good for the left (better, actually). The left pursued both paths. The advantage of the court for the left is that its rulings have nationwide effect, so it is more promising if you want to change the law in Mississippi. 3. Your "legal wedge between the US government and Christianity which simply had never existed before" claim is nonsense. Conservative Christians have been involved in numerous battles over many years with a rather poor success rate: over adultery, blasphemy, censorship, evolution, homosexuality... They are simply on the wrong side of history. It has nothing to do with "brilliant master strokes".
John Carson
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
There is only one reason Roe v Wade is so important. The left knew full well that it would be an issue that Christian society at large could not dismiss. They would have to oppose it. That allowed the left to create a legal wedge between the US government and Christianity which simply had never existed before. Christianity had to take a position against an issue which, as poorly reasoned as it was, was framed in constitutional precident. For the first time in American history Christianity was pried loose from the national society itself, and was thrown onto the defensive. It was one of the most brilliant master strokes in political history.
Just paranoia. 1. The issue was abortion, not Christianity. 2. Winning through the legislature rather than the courts would have been just as good for the left (better, actually). The left pursued both paths. The advantage of the court for the left is that its rulings have nationwide effect, so it is more promising if you want to change the law in Mississippi. 3. Your "legal wedge between the US government and Christianity which simply had never existed before" claim is nonsense. Conservative Christians have been involved in numerous battles over many years with a rather poor success rate: over adultery, blasphemy, censorship, evolution, homosexuality... They are simply on the wrong side of history. It has nothing to do with "brilliant master strokes".
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
2. Winning through the legislature rather than the courts would have been just as good for the left (better, actually). The left pursued both paths. The advantage of the court for the left is that its rulings have nationwide effect, so it is more promising if you want to change the law in Mississippi.
and, ummmm, would that be necessary you think because Mississippi was, well, more Christian?
John Carson wrote:
Your "legal wedge between the US government and Christianity which simply had never existed before" claim is nonsense. Conservative Christians have been involved in numerous battles over many years with a rather poor success rate: over adultery, blasphemy, censorship, evolution, homosexuality... They are simply on the wrong side of history. It has nothing to do with "brilliant master strokes".
So, just to be sure I understand. Christianity ,which once defined most of our social and cultural attitudes on these issues, completely independtly of any sort of political coercion from the federal state (you, know, separation of church and state and all), is getting its ass kicked as a result of simple historic processess completely and utterly unrelated to leftist principles but because people are just becoming more enlightened for reasons having nothing to do at all with the fact that the left is using the courts to get around the inconvenience of legistlation becuase the courts have interpreted the constituion in such a way that they have the authority to exert their will unopposed throughout every corner of our society? Thats your arguemnt? Well, gee, that certainly relieves my paranoia. Thanks, I feel better already.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Dalek Dave wrote:
Early abortion is mere loss of cells,
According to you.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Well of course according to me, I said it was a personal decision. I wouldn't presume to tell you how to live your life, and I wouldn't want anyone else telling me to do or not do something based on another's personal moral code.
------------------------------------ "The greatest tragedy in mankind's entire history may be the hijacking of morality by religion" Arthur C Clarke
-
Well of course according to me, I said it was a personal decision. I wouldn't presume to tell you how to live your life, and I wouldn't want anyone else telling me to do or not do something based on another's personal moral code.
------------------------------------ "The greatest tragedy in mankind's entire history may be the hijacking of morality by religion" Arthur C Clarke
Dalek Dave wrote:
I wouldn't presume to tell you how to live your life, and I wouldn't want anyone else telling me to do or not do something based on another's personal moral code.
But Stan is a fascist. He spends much of his time telling other people how to live their lives. If he had the power, we'd all march in lockstep with him.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Well of course according to me, I said it was a personal decision. I wouldn't presume to tell you how to live your life, and I wouldn't want anyone else telling me to do or not do something based on another's personal moral code.
------------------------------------ "The greatest tragedy in mankind's entire history may be the hijacking of morality by religion" Arthur C Clarke
Dalek Dave wrote:
I wouldn't presume to tell you how to live your life, and I wouldn't want anyone else telling me to do or not do something based on another's personal moral code.
Nothing wrong with that... Until people start dying. I'm assuming you don't have the same indifference to Jeffrey Dahmer, Chucky Manson, Scott Peterson, Somalia, Hitler, etc. I'm assuming you say that because you don't view abortion as the killing of another human being. I assume you're not an anarchist. My point is, virtually every nation on planet Earth condems murder and has laws regarding it. And most normal people don't see many just uses for it. And the laws prohibiting murder (like all laws) are telling someone what to do or not do based on a moral code. Your argument trivializes the actual issue, the core question of "is it human life".
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
Well of course according to me, I said it was a personal decision. I wouldn't presume to tell you how to live your life, and I wouldn't want anyone else telling me to do or not do something based on another's personal moral code.
------------------------------------ "The greatest tragedy in mankind's entire history may be the hijacking of morality by religion" Arthur C Clarke
Dalek Dave wrote:
I wouldn't presume to tell you how to live your life, and I wouldn't want anyone else telling me to do or not do something based on another's personal moral code.
Hmmmm, that sounds a lot like a personal moral code to me.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Dalek Dave wrote:
I wouldn't presume to tell you how to live your life, and I wouldn't want anyone else telling me to do or not do something based on another's personal moral code.
But Stan is a fascist. He spends much of his time telling other people how to live their lives. If he had the power, we'd all march in lockstep with him.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
But Stan is a fascist. He spends much of his time telling other people how to live their lives. If he had the power, we'd all march in lockstep with him.
Yes, because obviously someone who believes that political power belongs in the hands of the people and not in the hands of an all powerful supreme court is a fascist but someone who believes that we should all be forced to obey the dicatats of that court deciding what ever it wants to with no regard at all for the actual text of the constitution is not a fascist. Yeah, that makes a hell of a lot of sense. Is that another example of that libertarian mental agility of yours?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Dalek Dave wrote:
I wouldn't presume to tell you how to live your life, and I wouldn't want anyone else telling me to do or not do something based on another's personal moral code.
Nothing wrong with that... Until people start dying. I'm assuming you don't have the same indifference to Jeffrey Dahmer, Chucky Manson, Scott Peterson, Somalia, Hitler, etc. I'm assuming you say that because you don't view abortion as the killing of another human being. I assume you're not an anarchist. My point is, virtually every nation on planet Earth condems murder and has laws regarding it. And most normal people don't see many just uses for it. And the laws prohibiting murder (like all laws) are telling someone what to do or not do based on a moral code. Your argument trivializes the actual issue, the core question of "is it human life".
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
BoneSoft wrote:
And the laws prohibiting murder (like all laws) are telling someone what to do or not do based on a moral code.
But the taking of a human life is not the definition of murder. An executioner does not commit murder when he pulls the switch. A cop on the beat doesn't commit murder when he shoots to kill a bad guy pointing a gun at him. Not even a drunk in an SUV commits murder when he plows into a guy on a motorbike. A pilot who drops a bomb on a town, killing women and children as well as enemy soldiers, or a soldier who fires a machine gun into a house where guerillas are hiding and kills his target and his targets wife amd kids are not murderers. My point is that virtually every nation on earth allows humans to kill humans under special circumstances without defining them as murderers. And the last time I looked, once the state assumes the power to say there are exceptions to moral imperatives like "Thou shalt not kill," then a debate about what exceptions are permissible is unavoidable. Can I assume that you approved of the execution of Dahmer which was conducted by another inmate, and not the state? Most people do. Does that make them (and possibly you) into anarchists or (according to Stan, something worse) libertarians?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
BoneSoft wrote:
And the laws prohibiting murder (like all laws) are telling someone what to do or not do based on a moral code.
But the taking of a human life is not the definition of murder. An executioner does not commit murder when he pulls the switch. A cop on the beat doesn't commit murder when he shoots to kill a bad guy pointing a gun at him. Not even a drunk in an SUV commits murder when he plows into a guy on a motorbike. A pilot who drops a bomb on a town, killing women and children as well as enemy soldiers, or a soldier who fires a machine gun into a house where guerillas are hiding and kills his target and his targets wife amd kids are not murderers. My point is that virtually every nation on earth allows humans to kill humans under special circumstances without defining them as murderers. And the last time I looked, once the state assumes the power to say there are exceptions to moral imperatives like "Thou shalt not kill," then a debate about what exceptions are permissible is unavoidable. Can I assume that you approved of the execution of Dahmer which was conducted by another inmate, and not the state? Most people do. Does that make them (and possibly you) into anarchists or (according to Stan, something worse) libertarians?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
once the state assumes the power to say there are exceptions to moral imperatives like "Thou shalt not kill," then a debate about what exceptions are permissible is unavoidable.
And where should the authority to make such a determination exist? Is the government to have exclusive authority to do so because otherwise any such determination might reflect some religious perspective among the people?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Oakman wrote:
once the state assumes the power to say there are exceptions to moral imperatives like "Thou shalt not kill," then a debate about what exceptions are permissible is unavoidable.
And where should the authority to make such a determination exist? Is the government to have exclusive authority to do so because otherwise any such determination might reflect some religious perspective among the people?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Is the government to have exclusive authority to do so because otherwise any such determination might reflect some religious perspective among the people?
It certainly isn't surprising that you, like Adnan, disagree. But many of us are Jeffersonians: "History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes." - Thomas Jefferson.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Is the government to have exclusive authority to do so because otherwise any such determination might reflect some religious perspective among the people?
It certainly isn't surprising that you, like Adnan, disagree. But many of us are Jeffersonians: "History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes." - Thomas Jefferson.
I wasn't disagreeing with anything. I was just asking a simple question. Are you trying to suggest that Jefferson would have agreed that the courts should have the authority to control the social agenda in order to protect society from religious influence?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
I wasn't disagreeing with anything. I was just asking a simple question. Are you trying to suggest that Jefferson would have agreed that the courts should have the authority to control the social agenda in order to protect society from religious influence?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Are you trying to suggest that Jefferson would have agreed that the courts should have the authority to control the social agenda in order to protect society from religious influence?
Why do you consistently try to put words in the mouths of people you disagree with? Is it because you recognize that you cannot debate the points they are making? Or do you truly have that much trouble reading standard American English?
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Are you trying to suggest that Jefferson would have agreed that the courts should have the authority to control the social agenda in order to protect society from religious influence?
Why do you consistently try to put words in the mouths of people you disagree with? Is it because you recognize that you cannot debate the points they are making? Or do you truly have that much trouble reading standard American English?
Than could you please translate for me what you think Jefferson was actually saying? You know, in your own words? And why what he was saying is significant to the conversation at hand. And, further, which part of his quote you think I disagree with.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
BoneSoft wrote:
And the laws prohibiting murder (like all laws) are telling someone what to do or not do based on a moral code.
But the taking of a human life is not the definition of murder. An executioner does not commit murder when he pulls the switch. A cop on the beat doesn't commit murder when he shoots to kill a bad guy pointing a gun at him. Not even a drunk in an SUV commits murder when he plows into a guy on a motorbike. A pilot who drops a bomb on a town, killing women and children as well as enemy soldiers, or a soldier who fires a machine gun into a house where guerillas are hiding and kills his target and his targets wife amd kids are not murderers. My point is that virtually every nation on earth allows humans to kill humans under special circumstances without defining them as murderers. And the last time I looked, once the state assumes the power to say there are exceptions to moral imperatives like "Thou shalt not kill," then a debate about what exceptions are permissible is unavoidable. Can I assume that you approved of the execution of Dahmer which was conducted by another inmate, and not the state? Most people do. Does that make them (and possibly you) into anarchists or (according to Stan, something worse) libertarians?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Yes I made the mistake of using the word muder again. Legal distinctions aside, I meant the killing of another human being. I see your point, but feel obligated to point out that all of your examples are accidents, self defense, or acts done in war. None of them have a correlation to abortion.
Oakman wrote:
then a debate about what exceptions are permissible is unavoidable
Agreed, and I have no problem with that.
Oakman wrote:
Can I assume that you approved of the execution of Dahmer which was conducted by another inmate, and not the state?
No you cannot. As much as I sometimes feel like applauding vigilante behaviour, I would very much prefer that the laws standard to us all handle the dealing of punishment. Anarchy is about as welcome to me as communism, which is to say not in the least.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.