• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Flags, Crosses, And Naked People

aquapub

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 16, 2005
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
344
Location
America (A.K.A., a red state)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Do you think flag burning, cross burning, or pornaography should be illegal?

If not, do you think they should be legal because they are protected under the 1st Amendment?


**NOTE: I started a thread like this earlier and it got hijacked by one person who had issues with both literacy and anger management. So in case we have anyone in here who doesn't see the need to finish reading what a person says before hurling juvenile smears at them, I will THIS TIME spell out my position in as few words as possible to lessen the chances of a repeat.**


1) None of these things should be illegal. They take nothing from anyone; they violate no rights; all they require is a little self-control and tolerance from those who are offended by them. The solution is to expect the easily offended to control themselves, not to stop ignorant degenerates from burning their own property or taking nudy pictures just because other ignorant degenerates decide to get angry about it.

2) Having said that, I must also say that none of these things are protected by the 1st Amendment.

a) Burning things might be misconstrued by some as political or religious speech (the two types of speech protected by the 1st Amendment) by some, but punching a wall is clearly not what the founders considered speech, and neither is any other form of assault on property. And pornography cannot even be seriously construed as political or religious speech.

b) Even if these things were political or religious speech, the federal courts have no jurisdiction over what Larry Flint can or cannot publish in Cincinnati, for example. That is a local/state matter. The Constitution could not be clearer about that.

I know it has become commonplace for people to unwittingly repeat the fallacies about the Courts' jurisdiction invented by Chief Justice Earl Warren, but they run contrary to the Constitution and the unmistakable intent of the founding fathers.

The federal courts' jurisdiction covers military matters, interstate problems, embassador issues, treaties, and all other things federal. And in the section of the Constitution that creates the courts, it even clarifies that the federal courts are Congress's bitch. Their role overturning state laws and micro-managing local schools and such is a total usurpation.

On a side note: George Washington warned about Judicial usurpation causing major upheaval, and the first time the Supreme Court REALLY usurped its constitutional boundaries (Dredd Scott), he was proved right. In that case, the court didn't just rule that a slave didn't become free by crossing into free territory, but it outrageously asserted that slavery was forthwith binding and legal across the country. This was illegal and it caused a civil war. The law of the land is NOT whatever the Supreme Court says it is.
 

Engimo

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Messages
1,042
Reaction score
0
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Since when is speech required to be political or religious for it to be protected? That's certainly not what the 1st Amendment says.

1st Amendment said:
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.
The general idea is that no speech can be restricted unless it is impinging upon the rights of another person or producing a threat towards the country/other people. Religious/political speech are not the only forms of protected speech - all non-threatening/non-slanderous/etc. speech is protected.
 

jallman

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
36,915
Reaction score
11,283
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
aquapub said:
**NOTE: I started a thread like this earlier and it got hijacked by one person who had issues with both literacy and anger management. So in case we have anyone in here who doesn't see the need to finish reading what a person says before hurling juvenile smears at them, I will THIS TIME spell out my position in as few words as possible to lessen the chances of a repeat.**
Bravo!!! Way to continue the assholishness of the earlier thread. Fact is, when you look at article 3 section 2 of the constitution, the Supreme court has clear judiciary review of state laws when a citizen of the US has a complaint and the law violates the federal constitution. I dont see whats so hard to understand about this and obviously neither does our present government...you know, the one we have had since the formation of the union. :roll:

By the way, this was a much more clear communication of your opinion than last time. Barring the above quote, it was much less venomous from its onset and the tone was one of dissemination of information and ideas rather than sharp-tongued rhetoric.
 

aquapub

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 16, 2005
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
344
Location
America (A.K.A., a red state)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Engimo said:
Since when is speech required to be political or religious for it to be protected? That's certainly not what the 1st Amendment says.

The general idea is that no speech can be restricted unless it is impinging upon the rights of another person or producing a threat towards the country/other people. Religious/political speech are not the only forms of protected speech - all non-threatening/non-slanderous/etc. speech is protected.
This argument is a fallacy…

1) See my response to Jallman below to see my first problem with this post, which is the fallacy that the Bill of Rights is a protection of all Americans from any state, local, or federal restrictions of speech rather than a protection of the sovereignty of the states against the new federal government. It is also clear that the 1st Amendment only applies to the federal government from the text itself, instructing only that, “THE CONGRESS shall make no law…” The Congress is a FEDERAL body. No other jurisdiction is given this restriction, and no state or local jurisdiction COULD’VE been restricted by this document, being that the founding fathers were so feverishly loyal to state’s rights.

Every time a federal court tells a local school to take down a nativity scene, for example, that federal court has misinterpreted both the reach and the meaning of the 1st Amendment. And most importantly it has usurped its constitutional authority, and in fact, they’ve done exactly the opposite of what the Constitution laid out for them.

Jefferson himself also makes this clear in his objections to the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, where he condemns the acts as unconstitutional because nowhere had the states ever delegated the authority to the federal government to pass laws on the freedom of speech or press. The federal government has NO right to interfere with the states on free speech.

2) As for the fact that the 1st Amendment was created as an expressly religious and political protection, the language of the Amendment alone bears this out:

“Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of RELIGION…”
It also mentions freedom of speech, assembly, press, and to petition the government for grievances.

Petitioning the government for grievances is inherently a political act.

There are numerous instances on record where founders have spoken supportively of local morality and vulgarity laws. Clearly, the speech they were concerned with was the kind that had been TAKEN from them by the British, which is why they rebelled; it was the kind they were worried about welcoming back into their lives by creating a strong federal government with the Constitution-political and religious speech.

Furthermore, famous anti-federalist, Patrick Henry wrote notoriously about his concerns that the “general welfare” clause was too vague and would someday be interpreted as authorizing practically any federal power that might be imagined. He also warned that the federal courts would someday misinterpret their role EXACTLY the way Earl (perverter) Warren ended up doing and making mainstream-that the law of the land is whatever the courts say it is.

Alexander Hamilton clarified in Federalist 81 that he expected the judiciary to be the WEAKEST of the three branches, and that Congress should keep them at that status. How are the federal courts now the final word on every state, local and federal procedure and law regarding everything from who can have sex with whom, how God can be acknowledged, and whether or not Larry Flint should be able to promote and sell porn? NONE of this is within their constitutional jurisdiction, ALL of it is within their illegally assumed jurisdiction.










jallman said:
Bravo!!! Way to continue the assholishness of the earlier thread. Fact is, when you look at article 3 section 2 of the constitution, the Supreme court has clear judiciary review of state laws when a citizen of the US has a complaint and the law violates the federal constitution. I dont see whats so hard to understand about this and obviously neither does our present government...you know, the one we have had since the formation of the union. :roll:

By the way, this was a much more clear communication of your opinion than last time. Barring the above quote, it was much less venomous from its onset and the tone was one of dissemination of information and ideas rather than sharp-tongued rhetoric.

I just re-read it. There is nothing in there that authorizes the courts to deal with state or local matters unless those matters are conflicts with other states. Provide ONE excerpt from it that says what you are saying or take your uncivil ranting back to the basement where it belongs.

And just to give you an idea of how much our founding government agrees with you and Chief Justice (perverter of the Constitution) Earl Warren on the Constitution…

In the summer of 1787, James Madison proposed that the new federal government be given the power to veto state legislation. It was overwhelmingly defeated and it caused a great deal of outrage among the states who wrote volumes of angry material on this proposal, condemning it as something that would “repudiate everything the colonists had fought for against the British.”

Another misunderstanding of yours can be rectified by the Blaine Amendment. In the late 1870s Congressman James G. Blaine introduced a proposal to extend 1st Amendment’s restrictions of the federal government to the states. It was repeatedly introduced and repeatedly rejected. But the fact that it was even proposed proved that the 1st Amendment was never understood or meant to apply to the states.

This, of course is obvious anyway if you think about the numerous, numerous speeches and writings the founding fathers gave and wrote on the sovereignty of the states and the limited power of the new federal government. That particular fallacy you are asserting never existed until the Warren Court started inventing outrageously backwards, almost treasonously illegal interpretations of the Constitution. So when you imply that things have been this way since the beginning, it makes you EXTRA wrong.

And yes, this intro was MUCH simpler. I hope you can stay on topic this time.
 
Last edited:

9TH

New member
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
42
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
aquapub said:
This argument is a fallacy…

1) See my response to Jallman below to see my first problem with this post, which is the fallacy that the Bill of Rights is a protection of all Americans from any state, local, or federal restrictions of speech rather than a protection of the sovereignty of the states against the new federal government. It is also clear that the 1st Amendment only applies to the federal government from the text itself, instructing only that, “THE CONGRESS shall make no law…” The Congress is a FEDERAL body. No other jurisdiction is given this restriction, and no state or local jurisdiction COULD’VE been restricted by this document, being that the founding fathers were so feverishly loyal to state’s rights.

Every time a federal court tells a local school to take down a nativity scene, for example, that federal court has misinterpreted both the reach and the meaning of the 1st Amendment. And most importantly it has usurped its constitutional authority, and in fact, they’ve done exactly the opposite of what the Constitution laid out for them.

Jefferson himself also makes this clear in his objections to the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, where he condemns the acts as unconstitutional because nowhere had the states ever delegated the authority to the federal government to pass laws on the freedom of speech or press. The federal government has NO right to interfere with the states on free speech.

2) As for the fact that the 1st Amendment was created as an expressly religious and political protection, the language of the Amendment alone bears this out:

“Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of RELIGION…”
It also mentions freedom of speech, assembly, press, and to petition the government for grievances.

Petitioning the government for grievances is inherently a political act.
Maybe, but is assembling inherently political, or in your opinion, are political and religious assemblies the only ones protected? The same with the press, only political and religious papers are protected?

Personally, I wouldn't want to live in a country where only political and/or religious speech is protected, whether the founders intended it or not.

Regarding the intent of the founders, here's what one of them had to say:

"Whatever veneration might be entertained for the body of men who formed our Constitution, the sense of that body could never be regarded as the oracular guide in expounding the Constitution."

That's Madison expressing surprise that his colleagues in congress sometimes asked him for an opinion as to what the authors intented. Not all signers participated in all debates on every clause. They came to their task with different biases and ideas and to try to get a solid fix on what the entire group intended is, in many ways, a fool's errand. As Madison expressed it, "...it appeared that a sense had been put on the Constitution by some who were members of the Convention, different from that which must have been entertained by others."

BTW - Doesn't the 14th amendment express some of your aguments regarding the role of Federal courts? Do they not become involved if a State denies a citizen liberty or equal protection of the laws?
 

aquapub

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 16, 2005
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
344
Location
America (A.K.A., a red state)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
9TH said:
1) is assembling inherently political, or in your opinion, are political and religious assemblies the only ones protected? The same with the press, only political and religious papers are protected?



2) Personally, I wouldn't want to live in a country where only political and/or religious speech is protected, whether the founders intended it or not.

3) Regarding the intent of the founders, here's what one of them had to say:

"Whatever veneration might be entertained for the body of men who formed our Constitution, the sense of that body could never be regarded as the oracular guide in expounding the Constitution."

That's Madison expressing surprise that his colleagues in congress sometimes asked him for an opinion as to what the authors intented. Not all signers participated in all debates on every clause. They came to their task with different biases and ideas and to try to get a solid fix on what the entire group intended is, in many ways, a fool's errand. As Madison expressed it, "...it appeared that a sense had been put on the Constitution by some who were members of the Convention, different from that which must have been entertained by others."

4) BTW - Doesn't the 14th amendment express some of your aguments regarding the role of Federal courts? Do they not become involved if a State denies a citizen liberty or equal protection of the laws?

1) Again, think of the history. A bunch of sovereign colonies have existed for a long time and suddenly there is this movement to bind them to each other through a federal government. Centralized government abusing its powers is exactly what they just got done fighting a revolution to stop. There is widespread anti-federal fervor and many, many of the people in the colonies are terrified they were about to deliver the colonies right back into the hands of tyranny.

The only way the revolutionary leaders can convince the people to go along with this dangerous notion is to absolutely bend over backwards to convince them that this government will only be used to defend the several states and to deal with interstate issues. They had to draft and include a Bill of Rights to convince New York and Virginia that their states' sovereignty wouldn't be overruled or interfered with in any way before they would sign the Constitution. There were even proposals to give the states the right to veto federal rulings within their own borders (and a couple states did end up doing this a couple of times).

What kind of speech do you think they were talking about?

The founders' statements and writings in the Federalist Papers clarify that free assembly is all about preventing the federal government from banning political parties and religious denominations within the states. They also highlight the importance of the political balance of power that occurs when states are allowed to organize against or with federal political forces.

Similarly, they made many statements like this about the press. And, the only purpose the press served back then was to communicate political and religious dissent, so naturally that would be the protections they were being given by the Bill of Rights.

2) I think the only kind of government worth having is one that can survive on its own two feet by the consent of the governed. You cannot ensure that you have the consent of the governed unless they have the right to speak freely about you.

I wouldn't want to live in any place where people aren't expected to control themselves in the presence of dissent (including the government). But the way the Constitution sets things up, you are to obey the laws of the state you are in or go to one more to your liking. The concept of a federal government intervening in any of this is illegal.

3) Two points on this:

a) This might apply to the controversially vague features of the Constitution like the "general welfare" clause, which could be interpreted a hundred different ways, but I am certain that a point as fundamental to our founding as whether or not the federal government has any Constitutional authority to be involved in state and local cases was NOT what he was referring to.

b) Madison went back and forth on this. He has been documented by numerous scholars as having repeatedly changed his mind about nearly everything else he said during his political career as well. In one modern study called, "How many Madisons will we find?" the author, Albert Taylor Bledsoe wrote, "Mr. Madison was more solicitous to preserve the integrity of the union, than the coherency of his own thoughts."

4) No. Section 1 of Amendment XIV is saying that any citizen of any state that is included in this Constitution is now a citizen of the United States, and that the states shall not pass or enforce any laws that contradict the Constitution's restrictions on this new federal government (i.e., one state usurping another state's rights, etc.) See my earlier post about the Blaine amendment for further confirmation of this.
 
Last edited:

aquapub

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 16, 2005
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
344
Location
America (A.K.A., a red state)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
There is also more to be said on the 14th Amendment. It was not drafted by the founders.

After the outrageous usurpation of authority by the Supreme Court in claiming to have legalized slavery nationwide (in the Dredd Scott case-which started the Civil War) instead of just acknowledging the fact that their constitutional jurisdiction only applied to the case at hand, the 14th Amendment was drafted (during Reconstruction) partially to reverse the Dredd Scott decision.

It has been argued by many that the 14th Amendment was where usurpation really began/took off. It has been used to overturn California's democratically enacted Proposition 187 (preventing illegal aliens from getting welfare); it has been used to illegally raise taxes without the consent of the governed (something the founders went out of their way to forbid-and something we fought a revolutionary war to put an end to); it has been used to illegally order the city of Yonkers New York to build thousands of public housing units (at a crushingly unaffordable expense to tax payers) on the basis that Yonkers wasn't being "fair" to minorities; It has been used to overturn the death penalty-even though the Constitution specifically authorizes the use of capitol punishment. The courts aren't even trying to interpret, let alone, adhere to, the intent of the founders anymore.

The 5th and 14th Amendments were clearly meant to ensure that our government respected the rights of accused criminals and such. It has been used to justify the courts deciding what laws are legal. This is not within their Constitutional authority.

In Roe vs. Wade, Justice Rehnquist explained that "this decision partakes more of judicial legislation than it does of a determination of the intent of the drafters of the 14th Amendment...To reach its decision the court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the 14th Amendment a right which was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the amendment."

Eisenhower was asked once if he had any regrets from his presidency and he replied, "Yes, two of them. They are both sitting on the Supreme Court." Earl Warren is one of the mistakes he was referring to. That "justice" has done more to make us the exact opposite of what the founders expressly intended than any federal figure in American history.

The 14th Amendment was also "ratified" at the tip of a bayonet, illegally, and unconstitutionally by the hostage-held southern states as a part of a radical Republican power ploy.
 
Last edited:

9TH

New member
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
42
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
aquapub said:
It has been argued by many that the 14th Amendment was where usurpation really began/took off. It has been used to overturn California's democratically enacted Proposition 187 (preventing illegal aliens from getting welfare); it has been used to illegally raise taxes without the consent of the governed (something the founders went out of their way to forbid-and something we fought a revolutionary war to put an end to); it has been used to illegally order the city of Yonkers New York to build thousands of public housing units (at a crushingly unaffordable expense to tax payers) on the basis that Yonkers wasn't being "fair" to minorities; It has been used to overturn the death penalty-even though the Constitution specifically authorizes the use of capitol punishment. The courts aren't even trying to interpret, let alone, adhere to, the intent of the founders anymore.
So then, the 14th Amendment is illegal? It allows all this illegality! I'm at a loss to understand how a part of the Constitution (the Supreme law of the land) can be said to be illegal. Oh, I see, its being used illegally. Like, by Courts and such. I say the same thing when there's a decision I don't like. One man's originalism is another man's activism.

aquapub said:
The 5th and 14th Amendments were clearly meant to ensure that our government respected the rights of accused criminals and such.
I guess equal protection must be the "and such" part.

aquapub said:
In Roe vs. Wade, Justice Rehnquist explained that "this decision partakes more of judicial legislation than it does of a determination of the intent of the drafters of the 14th Amendment...To reach its decision the court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the 14th Amendment a right which was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the amendment."
And, like most Justices, he completely ignores the 9th which, IMO allows for the recognition of those rights which are, "apparently completely unknown" to the founders.

aquapub said:
Eisenhower was asked once if he had any regrets from his presidency and he replied, "Yes, two of them. They are both sitting on the Supreme Court." Earl Warren is one of the mistakes he was referring to.
The other, I believe, was Brennan. Probably the best "mistake" ever put on the court, although I'm sure you disagree.

aquapub said:
The 14th Amendment was also "ratified" at the tip of a bayonet, illegally, and unconstitutionally by the hostage-held southern states as a part of a radical Republican power ploy.
You know what they say, "To the victors......":lol: And if the South had won, I suppose there would have been no forced recognition or ratification of anything, them being so reasonable and all.:roll:

aquapub said:
But the way the Constitution sets things up, you are to obey the laws of the state you are in or go to one more to your liking. The concept of a federal government intervening in any of this is illegal.
So, if the State violates your rights under the US Constituion,...... then what? Oh yeah, too bad! Come on. If the States are not bound by the Supreme law of the land, who is?

aquapub said:
Madison went back and forth on this. He has been documented by numerous scholars as having repeatedly changed his mind about nearly everything else he said during his political career as well. In one modern study called, "How many Madisons will we find?" the author, Albert Taylor Bledsoe wrote, "Mr. Madison was more solicitous to preserve the integrity of the union, than the coherency of his own thoughts."
Which is exactly the point regarding the founders' intent. Madison wasn't the only one to say or do things which seem to have gone against their own "original meaning" of the document which they themselves wrote. Why then would we be bound by what they "meant" when they themselves could scarcely hold on to it?

You seem to believe that there was a time when all were in agreement as to the meaning of everything in the Constitution. Nothing could be further from the truth. The struggle to discover the proper application is never ending. Perhaps that is the greatest achievement of the founders.

BTW, back to the orignal title of the thread: I don't care if you burn a flag wrapped cross while watching porn films! That's what freedom is!
 

aquapub

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 16, 2005
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
344
Location
America (A.K.A., a red state)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I said: It has been argued by many that the 14th Amendment was where usurpation really began/took off. It has been used to overturn California's democratically enacted Proposition 187 (preventing illegal aliens from getting welfare); it has been used to illegally raise taxes without the consent of the governed (something the founders went out of their way to forbid-and something we fought a revolutionary war to put an end to); it has been used to illegally order the city of Yonkers New York to build thousands of public housing units (at a crushingly unaffordable expense to tax payers) on the basis that Yonkers wasn't being "fair" to minorities; It has been used to overturn the death penalty-even though the Constitution specifically authorizes the use of capitol punishment. The courts aren't even trying to interpret, let alone, adhere to, the intent of the founders anymore.

9th said: So then, the 14th Amendment is illegal? It allows all this illegality! I'm at a loss to understand how a part of the Constitution (the Supreme law of the land) can be said to be illegal. Oh, I see, its being used illegally. Like, by Courts and such. I say the same thing when there's a decision I don't like. One man's originalism is another man's activism.


I say: I don't get why you are so aghast at this. The enacting of the 14th Amendment was the exact moment this government became the exact opposite of what the founding fathers put in place; it became a centralized federal force interfering with state matters at every level. The 14th Amendment was about slavery but it has been used to grant the federal courts jurisdiction over every aspect of our lives with no regard for the states' sovereignty so vehemently protected by the founders. AND the 14th Amendment WAS illegally "ratified," unconstitutionally, through illegal coercion of the unwilling states. So, yes, the 14th Amendment is what reversed America as it was designed, and it was completely illegal.





I said: The 5th and 14th Amendments were clearly meant to ensure that our government respected the rights of accused criminals and such.

9th said: I guess equal protection must be the "and such" part.

I say: Yes.



I said: In Roe vs. Wade, Justice Rehnquist explained that "this decision partakes more of judicial legislation than it does of a determination of the intent of the drafters of the 14th Amendment...To reach its decision the court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the 14th Amendment a right which was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the amendment."

9th said: And, like most Justices, he completely ignores the 9th which, IMO allows for the recognition of those rights which are, "apparently completely unknown" to the founders.

I say: What is IMO? And how does an Amendment protecting the rights of one from infringing on the rights of another justify Roe (if that's what you are saying...please clarify)?



I said: The 14th Amendment was also "ratified" at the tip of a bayonet, illegally, and unconstitutionally by the hostage-held southern states as a part of a radical Republican power ploy.

9th said: You know what they say, "To the victors......" And if the South had won, I suppose there would have been no forced recognition or ratification of anything, them being so reasonable and all.

I say: The south wasn't the side forcing their views down someone else's throat. Had they won, they would have had no reason to enact an amendment (that reverses everything this country was built on just) to make the other side behave their way.



I said: But the way the Constitution sets things up, you are to obey the laws of the state you are in or go to one more to your liking. The concept of a federal government intervening in any of this is illegal.

9th said: So, if the State violates your rights under the US Constitution,...... then what? Oh yeah, too bad! Come on. If the States are not bound by the Supreme law of the land, who is?

I say: The Bill of Rights was not designed to protect individuals from state governments. It was specifically and expressly designed to protect the states from the new federal government. Citizens have no protection from their state governments by the new federal government under the Constitution as it was made. That has been my central point throughout this whole thing. Federal interference with what states do to their own citizens was an outrageous concept to the founders. They preached against it vehemently.



I said: Madison went back and forth on this. He has been documented by numerous scholars as having repeatedly changed his mind about nearly everything else he said during his political career as well. In one modern study called, "How many Madisons will we find?" the author, Albert Taylor Bledsoe wrote, "Mr. Madison was more solicitous to preserve the integrity of the union, than the coherency of his own thoughts."

9th said: Which is exactly the point regarding the founders' intent. Madison wasn't the only one to say or do things which seem to have gone against their own "original meaning" of the document which they themselves wrote. Why then would we be bound by what they "meant" when they themselves could scarcely hold on to it?

You seem to believe that there was a time when all were in agreement as to the meaning of everything in the Constitution. Nothing could be further from the truth. The struggle to discover the proper application is never ending. Perhaps that is the greatest achievement of the founders.

BTW, back to the original title of the thread: I don't care if you burn a flag wrapped cross while watching porn films! That's what freedom is!

I say: We have to care about the founders' intent. We are a constitutional government. It is an inherent function of that type of government. And no founder flip flopped like Madison. Some founders appear to flip flop when they preach against a federal religion while endorsing state and local morality codes, but they aren't contradicting themselves.

And on the very basic, fundamental issue of whether or not the Bill of Rights was a grant of authority to the federal government over everyone or a restriction of the federal government's power over the states, there WAS uniformity. No one back then thought the federal government was being created with any sovereignty over private state issues. That is a modern reinvention of the Constitution.


As for getting back to the main debate, the only thing you and I disagree about is the constitutionality of flag/cross burning, and pornography. We really have nothing else to debate.
 

Conflict

Banned
Joined
Jul 30, 2005
Messages
745
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
aquapub said:
I said: It has been argued by many that the 14th Amendment was where usurpation really began/took off. It has been used to overturn California's democratically enacted Proposition 187 (preventing illegal aliens from getting welfare); it has been used to illegally raise taxes without the consent of the governed (something the founders went out of their way to forbid-and something we fought a revolutionary war to put an end to); it has been used to illegally order the city of Yonkers New York to build thousands of public housing units (at a crushingly unaffordable expense to tax payers) on the basis that Yonkers wasn't being "fair" to minorities; It has been used to overturn the death penalty-even though the Constitution specifically authorizes the use of capitol punishment. The courts aren't even trying to interpret, let alone, adhere to, the intent of the founders anymore.

9th said: So then, the 14th Amendment is illegal? It allows all this illegality! I'm at a loss to understand how a part of the Constitution (the Supreme law of the land) can be said to be illegal. Oh, I see, its being used illegally. Like, by Courts and such. I say the same thing when there's a decision I don't like. One man's originalism is another man's activism.


I say: I don't get why you are so aghast at this. The enacting of the 14th Amendment was the exact moment this government became the exact opposite of what the founding fathers put in place; it became a centralized federal force interfering with state matters at every level. The 14th Amendment was about slavery but it has been used to grant the federal courts jurisdiction over every aspect of our lives with no regard for the states' sovereignty so vehemently protected by the founders. AND the 14th Amendment WAS illegally "ratified," unconstitutionally, through illegal coercion of the unwilling states. So, yes, the 14th Amendment is what reversed America as it was designed, and it was completely illegal.





I said: The 5th and 14th Amendments were clearly meant to ensure that our government respected the rights of accused criminals and such.

9th said: I guess equal protection must be the "and such" part.

I say: Yes.



I said: In Roe vs. Wade, Justice Rehnquist explained that "this decision partakes more of judicial legislation than it does of a determination of the intent of the drafters of the 14th Amendment...To reach its decision the court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the 14th Amendment a right which was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the amendment."

9th said: And, like most Justices, he completely ignores the 9th which, IMO allows for the recognition of those rights which are, "apparently completely unknown" to the founders.

I say: What is IMO? And how does an Amendment protecting the rights of one from infringing on the rights of another justify Roe (if that's what you are saying...please clarify)?



I said: The 14th Amendment was also "ratified" at the tip of a bayonet, illegally, and unconstitutionally by the hostage-held southern states as a part of a radical Republican power ploy.

9th said: You know what they say, "To the victors......" And if the South had won, I suppose there would have been no forced recognition or ratification of anything, them being so reasonable and all.

I say: The south wasn't the side forcing their views down someone else's throat. Had they won, they would have had no reason to enact an amendment (that reverses everything this country was built on just) to make the other side behave their way.



I said: But the way the Constitution sets things up, you are to obey the laws of the state you are in or go to one more to your liking. The concept of a federal government intervening in any of this is illegal.

9th said: So, if the State violates your rights under the US Constitution,...... then what? Oh yeah, too bad! Come on. If the States are not bound by the Supreme law of the land, who is?

I say: The Bill of Rights was not designed to protect individuals from state governments. It was specifically and expressly designed to protect the states from the new federal government. Citizens have no protection from their state governments by the new federal government under the Constitution as it was made. That has been my central point throughout this whole thing. Federal interference with what states do to their own citizens was an outrageous concept to the founders. They preached against it vehemently.



I said: Madison went back and forth on this. He has been documented by numerous scholars as having repeatedly changed his mind about nearly everything else he said during his political career as well. In one modern study called, "How many Madisons will we find?" the author, Albert Taylor Bledsoe wrote, "Mr. Madison was more solicitous to preserve the integrity of the union, than the coherency of his own thoughts."

9th said: Which is exactly the point regarding the founders' intent. Madison wasn't the only one to say or do things which seem to have gone against their own "original meaning" of the document which they themselves wrote. Why then would we be bound by what they "meant" when they themselves could scarcely hold on to it?

You seem to believe that there was a time when all were in agreement as to the meaning of everything in the Constitution. Nothing could be further from the truth. The struggle to discover the proper application is never ending. Perhaps that is the greatest achievement of the founders.

BTW, back to the original title of the thread: I don't care if you burn a flag wrapped cross while watching porn films! That's what freedom is!

I say: We have to care about the founders' intent. We are a constitutional government. It is an inherent function of that type of government. And no founder flip flopped like Madison. Some founders appear to flip flop when they preach against a federal religion while endorsing state and local morality codes, but they aren't contradicting themselves.

And on the very basic, fundamental issue of whether or not the Bill of Rights was a grant of authority to the federal government over everyone or a restriction of the federal government's power over the states, there WAS uniformity. No one back then thought the federal government was being created with any sovereignty over private state issues. That is a modern reinvention of the Constitution.


As for getting back to the main debate, the only thing you and I disagree about is the constitutionality of flag/cross burning, and pornography. We really have nothing else to debate.
Flag burning= legal
Cross burning= legal
Pornography= legal

any questions?
 
Top Bottom