• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's 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.

Proof of the Founding Fathers intent:

FutureIncoming

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2005
Messages
5,623
Reaction score
605
Location
Land of the Freedom-Stealers, because also Home of
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Trajan Octavian Titus wrote: "quit putting your posts in the wrong format making it impossible for me to respond"

WHAT A SORRY EXCUSE FOR INCOMPETENCE. I clearly mark everything I quote. If you are unable to read plain English, that is YOUR problem, not anyone else's. How ever did you communicate in Message Forums before boxed quotations were invented?



Trajan Octavian Titus also wrote: "to your load of crap which is somehow making a moral equivalency between making your child take out the trash and killing it."

FALSE. Making children do chores and homework is simply proof that they are NOT granted rights to liberty and pursuit-of-happiness. THEREFORE IT LOGICALLY FOLLOWS that they are not granted rights to life, either. At least as far as the Founding Fathers who wrote Declaration of Independence are concerned (who specified granting rights to adult males, not to children). The Constitution uses "born" to grant rights (14th Amendment). The unborn are granted nothing. THAT'S A FACT.



Trajan Octavian Titus also wrote: "Really I'm at a loss for words as to how you could possibly interpret that from the constitution, oh wait I forgot, you're a moral relativist."

FALSE. I explained my stand on morals in Message #28; go back and read it.
 

Comrade Brian

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2005
Messages
1,239
Reaction score
0
Location
NE, Minnesota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
vergiss said:
Why is the "intent" of a bunch of men who lived over two centuries ago so sacred?

Don't know why they have so many worshippers and why people think that most of what they say is relevant today. Or why one needs to submit their will to them. Who cares about them? T-H-E-Y- A-R-E D-E-A-D.
 

CoffeeSaint

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 24, 2005
Messages
1,088
Reaction score
23
Location
Wherever there is caffeine, I'll be there.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Felicity said:
Hey! You're an English teacher aren't you?! Is that "leaping to the sky" a reference to Pope?

Did I say that my entire position rests upon Jefferson's semantics....tsk...tsk...weren't you the one complaining about people putting words in your mouth?

On the issue of semantics...this is what I think of the "order" of the words.

You do recognize that one can't be "free" or "pursue happiness" if one never has "life"--so actually, I see the order as starting with a foundation and building upon that foundation. This especially is apparent in that the "possibly thousands" of other inalienable rights you mentioned would all be dependant upon 1st: life, 2nd: individual freedom to act, and 3rd: freedom to act upon licit preferences.

No, that is not a reference to Pope; my specialty is American literature, and I am not very familiar with Pope, more's the pity. As for my jumping on your as-yet unstated argument, my apologies; I am still learning proper debate etiquette, and sometimes I slip.

I can see the logic of your interpretation, but I would argue that the building's peak is the key element, rather than its base; we need the foundation to reach the top, but without the higher order of rights, i.e., freedom and happiness, the bottom rung is meaningless. A life without liberty is not worth living; neither, I would argue, is the life without happiness, or at least the pursuit thereof, the ability to act according to one's preferences. So is the base more important, or the pinnacle? I want to take each life as capable of reaching great heights, and I think it is most important that, as a society, we encourage individuals to reach as high as they can. Simple existence is a biological imperative; I do not believe there will ever be a dearth of newborns, and no law that we could enact would end the natural urge to reproduce. This is not something we need to encourage, in order to reach the heights we should aim at. No, what we must encourage is the capability that each person has to achieve as much as they can achieve; in order to do that, we cannot tell a human being that she must lose her rights, that she is less important than another, nor that she is sinful, bad, or irresponsible, if all she wants is to control her own destiny. Pardon me; we can, and should, TELL her that, but we cannot legislate it, and make it a basic tenet of our society. Our society cannot be based on the disempowerment of individuals in favor of other individuals, based on an arbitrarily chosen morality.

So, can we prove beyond a doubt that life is the most important of the inalienable rights? If not, how can we choose it over freedom without destroying everything worth living for? Even if we value life, must our country, our government, our society, be based on the preservation of life at any price?

I say no.
 

Felicity

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
11,946
Reaction score
1,717
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
CoffeeSaint said:
No, that is not a reference to Pope; my specialty is American literature, and I am not very familiar with Pope, more's the pity.
Too bad...I love English Lit. but tend to find Amr. Lit. a bit boring. I thought maybe it was from An Essay on Criticism...After that thought I checked out that poem again and thought this segment was applicable since the FF were concerned with Natural Law...

http://rpo.library.utoronto.ca/poem/1634.html

68 First follow NATURE, and your judgment frame
69By her just standard, which is still the same:
70Unerring Nature, still divinely bright,
71One clear, unchang'd, and universal light,
72Life, force, and beauty, must to all impart,
73At once the source, and end, and test of art.
74Art from that fund each just supply provides,
75Works without show, and without pomp presides:
76In some fair body thus th' informing soul
77With spirits feeds, with vigour fills the whole,
78Each motion guides, and ev'ry nerve sustains;
79Itself unseen, but in th' effects, remains.
80Some, to whom Heav'n in wit has been profuse,
81Want as much more, to turn it to its use;
82For wit and judgment often are at strife,
83Though meant each other's aid, like man and wife.
84'Tis more to guide, than spur the Muse's steed;
85Restrain his fury, than provoke his speed;
86The winged courser, like a gen'rous horse,
87Shows most true mettle when you check his course.

88 Those RULES of old discover'd, not devis'd,
89Are Nature still, but Nature methodis'd;
90Nature, like liberty, is but restrain'd
91By the same laws which first herself ordain'd.





As for my jumping on your as-yet unstated argument, my apologies; I am still learning proper debate etiquette, and sometimes I slip.
eh...no biggie....I forgive you. I'm certain I slip often enough as well.

I can see the logic of your interpretation, but I would argue that the building's peak is the key element, rather than its base; we need the foundation to reach the top, but without the higher order of rights, i.e., freedom and happiness, the bottom rung is meaningless.
But that portion in bold is completely subjective and not objectively considering the "bottom rung" in terms of its own inherent worth--it relies on individual interpretation of what is deemed "meaningful."

A life without liberty is not worth living;
Again--completely subjective...the word that gives that away is "worth." Worth to whom? My great-grandmother may have had the crappiest life EVER under the subjugation of whomever....but her life was of worth to me because without her, I would never have existed. And likewise--if my life is of worth--then that made her life at least a little worthwhile. It all depends on the subjective view of "worth."

neither, I would argue, is the life without happiness, or at least the pursuit thereof, the ability to act according to one's preferences. So is the base more important, or the pinnacle?
I say the base. Any summit built on unstable sands will crumble under pressure. No structure is greater than its foundation.
I want to take each life as capable of reaching great heights, and I think it is most important that, as a society, we encourage individuals to reach as high as they can. Simple existence is a biological imperative; I do not believe there will ever be a dearth of newborns, and no law that we could enact would end the natural urge to reproduce. This is not something we need to encourage, in order to reach the heights we should aim at. No, what we must encourage is the capability that each person has to achieve as much as they can achieve; in order to do that, we cannot tell a human being that she must lose her rights, that she is less important than another, nor that she is sinful, bad, or irresponsible, if all she wants is to control her own destiny. Pardon me; we can, and should, TELL her that, but we cannot legislate it, and make it a basic tenet of our society. Our society cannot be based on the disempowerment of individuals in favor of other individuals, based on an arbitrarily chosen morality.
This advocates a shifting foundation based on personal preference. A stable society values objective, unchanging values. There is most certainly a place for mercy--but misplaced mercy is no mercy at all. Freedom is not without responsibility. And if someone abuses freedom--it is no favor to that person--nor is it a favor to others who watch and learn from the example--to excuse the abuse in order to preserve some irresponsible individual's autonomy. The person who abuses her freedom should have real mercy--not the false mercy that simply seeks to "get rid of" the problem.


So, can we prove beyond a doubt that life is the most important of the inalienable rights?
What rights does someone who does not exist possess? Therefore--it is reasonable to presume the right to life is the most fundamental human right.

If not, how can we choose it over freedom without destroying everything worth living for?
Do you not see the inherent contradiction of this statement? There is no freedom without life--there is no subjective judging of what makes life WORTH living if there is no life. Furthermore--the woman who aborts in an effort to preserve her "freedom" denies the human she aborts the freedom she is defending for herself. The ZEF is a human that is at the complete control of another human--the mother--and THAT is where the abortion issue mirrors slavery--the fetus is a slave to the subjective desire of the mother--not the other way around.

Even if we value life, must our country, our government, our society, be based on the preservation of life at any price?

I say no.
Who said "at any price?" A woman who's life is at risk has the right to preserve her life. A woman who prefers to avoid an inconvenience merits less --much less--consideration. There are many circumstances in between....but life is a basic --no, THE basic--human right due all human beings.
 
Last edited:

FutureIncoming

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2005
Messages
5,623
Reaction score
605
Location
Land of the Freedom-Stealers, because also Home of
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Felicity wrote: "There are many circumstances in between....but life is a basic --no, THE basic--human right due all human beings."

FALSE. This is the EXCUSE that humans are using to destroy the ecology of Planet Earth, for their own totally selfish so-called "benefit", but which will eventually backfire in a Malthusean Catastrophe, killing 90% or maybe even more of all humans. THAT RESULT WILL INVALIDATE THE CLAIM. THEREFORE THERE IS NO INHERENT RIGHT TO LIFE FOR HUMANS. There is only the politically useful Golden Rule: "My life is as important to me as your life is important to you. Therefore we agree not to try to kill each other." Since no unborn human can understand this concept, they are exempt from having that concept applied to them -- and abortion becomes one tool among others that can help stave off a Malthusean Catastrophe. (But probably, by now, too little, too late. Especially the longer that pro-lifers remain blind to simple inevitable logic.)
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
doughgirl said:
It's ironic that in hospitals and clinics all over the country we have doctors in one operating room trying to save lives........while in the other we have doctors dismembering children.
No doctors are dismembering children, your deceptive, revisionist linguistic hyperbole none withstanding.
What most of you forget are the scientific facts. And those scientific facts for some of you don't even make a difference.
What "scientific facts" are you talking about? Please provide at appropriate documentation (if you know what that is) for these 'scientific facts."!
By our silence we consent to child-killing.
Utter stupid claptrap.
....has been claimed by some to guarantee a right to kill preborn children.
"preborn children" Ah, that must be something similar in verbiage to "predead corpses," right?
Is privacy a right? Society recognizes that some rights are higher than others. Does one persons right to privacy outweigh another persons right to live?
Well, does the kidney patient's right to life out-weight your right to privacy regarding your extra kidney? Can he FORCE you to give of your bodily resources to keep him alive? Is your right to privacy greater than his right to life?
Does abortion kill babies?
Nope. babies are already born.
 

Caine

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
23,428
Reaction score
7,226
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
No actually the fourth amendment specifically states that no man shall be relieved of his life, liberty, or property without due process, it took liberal mis-interpretations of the constitution to allow for slavery, just as it took liberal mis-interpretations to allow for abortion and the stealing of private property from the poor to give away to the rich in realestate deals because some asshole mayor deemed it was for the public good. The Founding Fathers did give the people a perfect government but it took us to fu*k it up.

Hmm.... So now your blaming "liberals" on slavery, which came long before the United States was ever thought of.

DUR DUR DURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

Every time YOU blame a liberal for something, you just make yourself sound more retarded, and thus, lose credibility.
 

CoffeeSaint

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 24, 2005
Messages
1,088
Reaction score
23
Location
Wherever there is caffeine, I'll be there.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Felicity said:
88 Those RULES of old discover'd, not devis'd,
89Are Nature still, but Nature methodis'd;
90Nature, like liberty, is but restrain'd
91By the same laws which first herself ordain'd.
And so the restraints of liberty, like the restraints on nature, are only those that nature itself -- or liberty itself -- has already put upon itself, not anything that we create. I like that. We can try to limit liberty, but we will not be able to; to put it in the terms of the argument, this would seem to imply that a ban on abortion would not reduce abortions; conversely, an acceptance of abortion would not limit the natural process of reproduction. Good quote.


Felicity said:
But that portion in bold is completely subjective and not objectively considering the "bottom rung" in terms of its own inherent worth--it relies on individual interpretation of what is deemed "meaningful."

Again--completely subjective...the word that gives that away is "worth." Worth to whom? My great-grandmother may have had the crappiest life EVER under the subjugation of whomever....but her life was of worth to me because without her, I would never have existed. And likewise--if my life is of worth--then that made her life at least a little worthwhile. It all depends on the subjective view of "worth."
True. It is a subjective judgement. And so is yours. Your life is a little worthwhile if you think it is a little worthwhile, and your subjective judgement grants some worth to your grandmother's existence. However, if I am of the opinion that my life has no worth whatsoever, that completely negates the worth of my existence; in that case, as often happens, I would most likely end my existence, and if asked, would also probably say that I would wish that I had never been born.
We can give an objective value to existence if there is an end we are trying to achieve by existing, if we allow that the end justifies the means. What end are we trying to achieve with our existence? The continuation of the species? I will refer you to FutureIncoming's Malthusian argument in that case, along with the statistics concerning population growth throughout human history -- which parallels the time period when abortion has been used to terminate pregnancies. Is there a different, objective, aim that imparts value to mere existence? I would say, no.

Felicity said:
I say the base. Any summit built on unstable sands will crumble under pressure. No structure is greater than its foundation.
And I say the heights. A base without a building on top is nothing but stones in the earth -- which is to say, earth. Nothing worth talking about, and certainly nothing worth defending. If a sudden plague made it so that every child was born irreversibly brain dead, would you still argue against abortion?
Felicity said:
This advocates a shifting foundation based on personal preference. A stable society values objective, unchanging values. There is most certainly a place for mercy--but misplaced mercy is no mercy at all. Freedom is not without responsibility. And if someone abuses freedom--it is no favor to that person--nor is it a favor to others who watch and learn from the example--to excuse the abuse in order to preserve some irresponsible individual's autonomy. The person who abuses her freedom should have real mercy--not the false mercy that simply seeks to "get rid of" the problem.
I would call your "stable" society stagnant; what good is a society that does not allow for change? Would you eliminate all changes that our society has endured? How far back in our social evolution should we go? Values change over time to reflect changes in reality; to maintain old, traditional values in the face of changing times is to be swept away by those times, as an anachronism. In Roman times, the traditional values included the paterfamilias, the right of the male head of a household to dispose of anyone in the household as he saw fit, up to and including the deaths of his own children. Is that a traditional value you would espouse? Would it be appropriate now, 2,500 years later?
As for irresponsibility, I will refer you to my response in the other thread; for now, I will simply ask you whose responsibility the child is in cases of rape.

Felicity said:
What rights does someone who does not exist possess? Therefore--it is reasonable to presume the right to life is the most fundamental human right.
Someone who does not exist has no rights at all, including the right to life. As soon as that person comes into existence, they have all of the inalienable rights; they cannot be separated. Existence is necessary for the other rights, but it does not endow the other rights. We are both being somewhat disingenuous when we talk about those rights as a building on a foundation; a better metaphor might be the organs and systems that form the body: each as vital as the others for real, lasting health.

Felicity said:
Do you not see the inherent contradiction of this statement? ("If not, how can we choose it over freedom without destroying everything worth living for?") There is no freedom without life--there is no subjective judging of what makes life WORTH living if there is no life. Furthermore--the woman who aborts in an effort to preserve her "freedom" denies the human she aborts the freedom she is defending for herself. The ZEF is a human that is at the complete control of another human--the mother--and THAT is where the abortion issue mirrors slavery--the fetus is a slave to the subjective desire of the mother--not the other way around.
You are holding contradictory positions here: you cannot argue that the only right worth having is life, and then argue that the mother takes freedom away from the child. But to answer your point, I have maintained all along that the mother is taking the rights away from the fetus (I am not familiar with the term ZEF), as we often have to take rights away from a person we are in conflict with. Yes, the fetus is in the mother's complete control, which would be slavery, if the mother received any value out of that control. If the mother wants the child, then the relationship gives value to the mother; if not, then it does not, and the slavery analogy fails. Then the fetus becomes a parasite. Finally, if we are to make the mother's life choices totally dependent on the preferences/best interests of the fetus, that would be slavery too, would it not?

Felicity said:
Who said "at any price?" A woman who's life is at risk has the right to preserve her life. A woman who prefers to avoid an inconvenience merits less --much less--consideration. There are many circumstances in between....but life is a basic --no, THE basic--human right due all human beings.
I agree with both of these statements. But this entire argument lies between those two poles. By saying "at any price," I meant that taking away one person's rights, in every case, is not justified by the preservation of another person's rights. Banning abortion is removing rights from the mother; if we were to mandate abortion, it would be removing rights from the children. As it is now, the mother is the one removing the child's rights, to preserve her own rights; it is absurd to call this self-defense, but it is the preservation of one's inalienable rights, even at the cost of another's rights. This is justifiable, in the right circumstances; for a society to do the same, to remove one's rights to preserve another's rights in every case, without consideration for the rights of both parties, is not justifiable. Abortion must be a decision. It cannot be a law.
 

Trajan Octavian Titus

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Caine said:
Hmm.... So now your blaming "liberals" on slavery, which came long before the United States was ever thought of.

DUR DUR DURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

Every time YOU blame a liberal for something, you just make yourself sound more retarded, and thus, lose credibility.

Every time you misinterpret the definition of a liberal used in a different context you loose your credibility (as if you ever had any) because you have no Idea what you're talking about:

This is the wrong way to interpret the constitution:

Liberal interpretation: Some propose a liberal theory of interpretation, where the goals of the framers are considered and adapted to the modern day, considering the practical consequences of various interpretations. However, such a system does away with most of the value of having a single written Constitution, replacing it with the considered wishes of judges. This leads to serious problems of legitimacy: judges claim that they are doing X not because they personally like it, but because the Constitution requires it. But how can they make such a claim if they've replaced the Constitution in this way? And why should we follow their pronouncements if they have?

This is the right way to interpret the constitution:

Original intent: In the context of U.S. constitutional interpretation, originalism is a family of theories which share the starting point that a Constitution (or statute) has a fixed and knowable meaning, which should be adhered to by judges. A neologism, "originalism" is a formalist theory of law, which is closely intertwined with textualism. It is mostly popular among U.S. political conservatives, but some liberals, such as Hugo Black and Akhil Amar, also subscribe to the theory.

This is how the Supreme Court's liberal interpretation against the intent of the founding fathers allowed for slavery:

Dred Scott v. Sandford1, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), known as the "Dred Scott Case", was a lawsuit decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1857. It is considered by many to have been a key cause of the American Civil War, and of the later ratification of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, leading to the abolition of slavery and establishment of civil rights for freed slaves. The decision for the court was written by Chief Justice Roger Taney.

Dred Scott was an American slave who was taken first to Illinois, a free state, and then to Minnesota, a free territory, for an extended period of time, and then back to the slave state of Missouri. After his original master died, he sued for his freedom. He initially won his freedom from a Missouri lower court, but the decision was reversed by the Missouri Supreme Court and remanded to the trial court. Simultaneously, Scott had filed suit in federal court, where, after prevailing on the issue of his status as a citizen of Missouri, he lost a trial by jury. Scott appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which used the case to fundamentally change the legal balance of power in favor of slaveholders.

The Supreme Court through its liberal interpretation of the Constitution ruled that:

No Negroes, not even free Negroes, could ever become citizens of the United States. They were "beings of an inferior order" not included in the phrase "all men" in the Declaration of Independence nor afforded any rights by the Constitution.
The exclusion of slavery from a U.S. territory in the Missouri Compromise was an unconstitutional deprivation of property (Negro slaves) without due process prohibited by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. This is the first appearance in American constitutional law of the concept of "substantive due process," as opposed to procedural due process.
Dred Scott was not free, because Missouri law alone applied after he returned there.

This is in direct contradiction to the original intent of the 4th amendment which states that:

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 offence 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.

Now do yourself a favor and actually study the law before you once again come unarmed to a battle of wits. ;)
 
Last edited:

CoffeeSaint

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 24, 2005
Messages
1,088
Reaction score
23
Location
Wherever there is caffeine, I'll be there.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Honest question: wouldn't the trial itself, the consideration and ruling by the Justices, be onsidered "due process," and thus sufficient to deprive Mr. Scott of his life, liberty, etc.? Wouldn't the laws passed by the individual states permitting chattel slavery also be considered due process? How is slavery a violation of the fourth amendment?
 

Caine

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
23,428
Reaction score
7,226
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Every time you misinterpret the definition of a liberal used in a different context you loose your credibility (as if you ever had any) because you have no Idea what you're talking about:

This is the wrong way to interpret the constitution:



This is the right way to interpret the constitution:




This is how the liberal interpretation against the intent of the founding fathers allowed for slavery:






The Supreme Court through its liberal interpretation of the Constitution ruled that:



This is in direct contradiction to the 4th amendment:



Now do yourself a favor and actually study the law before you once again come unarmed to a battle of wits. ;)

Hmmm... And... how E-X-A-C-T-L-Y is this a liberal interpretation.
Proove it was a Liberal Interpretation without using some crack ass conservobot website to substantiate your claim.

Its not a liberal interpretation because you say it is.

Also, are you blaming the liberals of present day america for denying these same rights to Gays?
Are gays a member of an inferior order, and thus not covered by the constitutional "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness"? Is this why so many states are refusing to give them the same rights of straight couples when it comes to marriage?
 

Trajan Octavian Titus

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Caine said:
Hmmm... And... how E-X-A-C-T-L-Y is this a liberal interpretation.
Proove it was a Liberal Interpretation without using some crack ass conservobot website to substantiate your claim.

Its not a liberal interpretation because you say it is.

Also, are you blaming the liberals of present day america for denying these same rights to Gays?
Are gays a member of an inferior order, and thus not covered by the constitutional "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness"? Is this why so many states are refusing to give them the same rights of straight couples when it comes to marriage?

lmfao

Firstly, that wasn't conservative talk that was called political theory learn the diffence,

Secondly, I just proved how a liberal interpretation of the Supreme Court was used to allow for slavery why would I do it again?

Thirdly, The words life liberty and the pursuit of happiness are not in the constitution they are in the decleration of independence they do however prove precedence as to the intent of the Fouding Fathers,

Fourthly, the issue of marriage is not in the constitution so in accordance with the 10th amendment it should be left up to the states respectively, or to the people, however, due to the full faith and credit clause those marriages that are recognized in one state would have to be recognized by all of the states that is why some are pushing for a constitutional amendment to clarify that marriage is between one man and one woman.
 

Trajan Octavian Titus

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
CoffeeSaint said:
Honest question: wouldn't the trial itself, the consideration and ruling by the Justices, be onsidered "due process," and thus sufficient to deprive Mr. Scott of his life, liberty, etc.? Wouldn't the laws passed by the individual states permitting chattel slavery also be considered due process? How is slavery a violation of the fourth amendment?

No because it was an unlawful interpretation of the Constitution as specified by the 4th amendment. It is not the Supreme Courts job to make law or reinterpret the original intent as they see fit it's their job to follow the original intent of the Founding Fathers which in the case of Dread Scott they clearly did not.
 

Caine

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
23,428
Reaction score
7,226
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
lmfao

Firstly, that wasn't conservative talk that was called political theory learn the diffence,

Secondly, I just proved how a liberal interpretation of the Supreme Court was used to allow for slavery why would I do it again?
You didn't prove ****, You said it was liberal because you said it was liberal.
Its not true just because you say it is.


Thirdly, The words life liberty and the pursuit of happiness are not in the constitution they are in the decleration of independence they do however prove precedence as to the intent of the Fouding Fathers,
Then this whole thread is retarded, since its not actually in the constitution. Thus you have contradicted yourself this whole time.

Fourthly, the issue of marriage is not in the constitution so in accordance with the 10th amendment it should be left up to the states respectively, or to the people, however, due to the full faith and credit clause those marriages that are recognized in one state would have to be recognized by all of the states that is why some are pushing for a constitutional amendment to clarify that marriage is between one man and one woman.
No, but if the founding fathers original intent was that of the declaration of independence, and all men are to be treated equally, Shouldn't Gay's recieve equal rights of marriage????
 

Trajan Octavian Titus

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Caine said:
You didn't prove ****, You said it was liberal because you said it was liberal.
Its not true just because you say it is.

I gave you the definitions of liberal interpretation and orignal intent now if you can find a part of the constitution that actually says that slavery should be legal since it is not in the Constitution specifically only a libereral interpretation could make it legal, also, if one is to hold slaves that is in direct violation of the 4th amendment which men shall not deprived of their life, liberty, or property without due process. As per the definition of liberal interpetation I don't see how anyone consider the Dread Scott decision anything but; furthermore, the fact that the Declaration of Indendence says that all men are created equal it would prove precedence as to the original intent.

Then this whole thread is retarded, since its not actually in the constitution. Thus you have contradicted yourself this whole time.

No it's not the Decleration shows precedent as I explained in the first post on this thread either you really don't understand the argument or you're simply being stubborn because you know I'm right.

No, but if the founding fathers original intent was that of the declaration of independence, and all men are to be treated equally, Shouldn't Gay's recieve equal rights of marriage????

Actually if you want to get technical it says created equal and then you woud have to get into the whole debate about whether or not ones sexual preference is a choice or genetic. And as I explained since the issue of gay marriage is not mentioned in the constitution it should be left up to the states respectively, or to the people, but due to the full faith and credit clause some are pushing for a constitutional amendment which would outlaw gay marriage throughout the entire 50 states of the Union.
 

Caine

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
23,428
Reaction score
7,226
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
I gave you the definitions of liberal interpretation and orignal intent now if you can find a part of the constitution that actually says that slavery should be legal since it is not in the Constitution specifically only a libereral interpretation could make it legal, also, if one is to hold slaves that is in direct violation of the 4th amendment which men shall not deprived of their life, liberty, or property without due process. As per the definition of liberal interpetation I don't see how anyone consider the Dread Scott decision anything but; furthermore, the fact that the Declaration of Indendence says that all men are created equal it would prove precedence as to the original intent.
And, its the liberal interpretation because you SAY its the liberal interpretation? Your not right because you say you are.



No it's not the Decleration shows precedent as I explained in the first post on this thread either you really don't understand the argument or you're simply being stubborn because you know I'm right.



Actually if you want to get technical it says created equal and then you woud have to get into the whole debate about whether or not ones sexual preference is a choice or genetic. And as I explained since the issue of gay marriage is not mentioned in the constitution it should be left up to the states respectively, or to the people, but due to the full faith and credit clause some are pushing for a constitutional amendment which would outlaw gay marriage throughout the entire 50 states of the Union.
Blah Blah Blah. I was using that as an example, this isn't the place to debate homosexual "genetics" or "choice".
I still stick to my opinion that your accusation of anything being against the way you believe must be a "liberal interpretation" and therefore wrong.
 

Trajan Octavian Titus

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Caine said:
And, its the liberal interpretation because you SAY its the liberal interpretation? Your not right because you say you are.

Liberal interpretation is not some conservative spin word it's a real theory of how the constitution should be looked at usually those on the left prescribe to it those on the right generally prescribe to the originalist interpretation, tell me how you could possibly interpret the Dread Scott interpretation as constructionist I'm all ears.
Blah Blah Blah. I was using that as an example, this isn't the place to debate homosexual "genetics" or "choice".
I still stick to my opinion that your accusation of anything being against the way you believe must be a "liberal interpretation" and therefore wrong.

LMFAO I see your problem you don't understand what the word liberal even means or how it can change in definition depending on the context, you have come unarmed to the battle of wits my friend.
 

Caine

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
23,428
Reaction score
7,226
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Liberal interpretation is not some conservative spin word it's a real theory of how the constitution should be looked at usually those on the left prescribe to it those on the right generally prescribe to the originalist interpretation, tell me how you could possibly interpret the Dread Scott interpretation as constructionist I'm all ears.
Hmmm.... And this is proof that what you claim to be the liberal interpretation IS IN FACT the liberal interpretation?
Nope... Insert Coin and Try Again.
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
LMFAO I see your problem you don't understand what the word liberal even means or how it can change in definition depending on the context, you have come unarmed to the battle of wits my friend.
You shoudl stop talking to the mirror.
 

Trajan Octavian Titus

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Caine said:
Hmmm.... And this is proof that what you claim to be the liberal interpretation IS IN FACT the liberal interpretation?
Nope... Insert Coin and Try Again.

Good way to totally dismiss an argument without any contradictory evidence you're not very good at this whole debate thing. Do you have anything to actually add to the debate besides one line quips, opinions, and partisan rhetoric?
 

ngdawg

conliberaservatarianist
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
2,149
Reaction score
24
Location
trackside
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Someone want to explain why this is in the abortion forum? Someone want to explain why this exists at all, other than to give Trojan something to argue about? Someone want to explain to Trojan he has no more knowledge of 'proof of intent' than anyone else? If the courts can't unanimously decide on intent with any consistancy, what makes a layperson with a bad attitude think he can?
Someone want to point out to Trojan it is spelled d-e-c-l-a-r-a-t-i-o-n?
 

vergiss

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
2,356
Reaction score
1
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Felicity said:
The Australian legal system is based in English common law just like the US legal system.

Your states have the right to decide--our highest legal court usurped that right.

Hah, no. The federal government can pass laws which the entire country has to follow. There's an issue with that at the moment, actually, with the federal government passing new laws regarding industrial relations that several states are opposed to.

The UK doesn't even have states.
 

Trajan Octavian Titus

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
ngdawg said:
Someone want to explain why this is in the abortion forum? Someone want to explain why this exists at all, other than to give Trojan something to argue about? Someone want to explain to Trojan he has no more knowledge of 'proof of intent' than anyone else? If the courts can't unanimously decide on intent with any consistancy, what makes a layperson with a bad attitude think he can?
Someone want to point out to Trojan it is spelled d-e-c-l-a-r-a-t-i-o-n?

This is proof of intent:
Declaration of Independence said:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Whether you believe that an invisible man in the sky is the creator or simply the man and the woman who engage in procreation the fact remains that the act of conception is creation and therfor the creator endows upon the created the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness it makes no difference whether ones humanity is only determined upon birth due to the fact that it is not the human that is protected by the rights but rather the creation itself even if that creation is just a zygote . . . is that clear enough for you?

It's called a precedent one which the Supreme Court totally ignored.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom