Well, it seems like we won't reach an agreement for awhile, but at least we can end on a friendly note. I have to study for finals, because, apparantly it's not too late for my teachers to take me out of my honors classes next year if I do poorly. I probably won't be as active on YouTube for the next couple of weeks.
Ok, so even though I prefer generally to have these conversations in view of the public so people can read and evaluate the arguments, YouTube is EXTREMELY frustrating to debate through comments because of the character limits. If you don't mind, I would prefer to take it to private messages.
I wanted to present the other side of the coin of one argument you made yesterday, and that is that change isn't supposed to come so slowly. THAT is precisely why I believe in a living Constitution instead of the strict constructionist view that you believe in. Because, when we are presented with obvious wrongs, like bans on interracial marriage. It will simply take too long for the amendment process to rectify the situation. Thus, we have the general language of the 14th amendment.
You believe that judges shouldn't read into the constitution because it would be too difficult and take too long to amend the constitution to override their decision. I believe the judge SHOULD read into it because it would take too long to amend it to guarantee the right that can and should be read into it. You would obviously disagree, but both are perfectly reasonable approaches. That's why we have nine justices appointed by different presidents each with his or her own approach.
sorry if it seems like I'm running or anything. If you noticed, BillyFred has been quiet for a while. We go to the same school and we have to get ready for finals. sorry I have to go. I'll try to continue this tommorrow, but if you want to keep it up, feel free to go to my channel or send private messages.
No, a fetus is a shell of what MIGHT be there. Same as a sperm cell in my testicles. Some religious people think it is a sin to masturbate because you are wasting potential life. Where do we draw the line? Who gets to decide? Someone has to. Our system provides the answer, it's all three branches of government, including the courts, working within the framework provided.
No, a viable fetus will become a full human if not prevented from doing so. Oh, and when does it give the Supremes the ability to decide on completely new concepts. Isn't the process of adapting to changes the duty of the other two? Isn't the Court put in place to keep us as close the the constitution as possible? Judicial review, not judicial activism, which, btw, are opposites.
Judicial review and judicial activism are not opposites. Judicial activism occurs when a conservative disagrees with the way in which a court exercises judicial review. And yes, a VIABLE fetus will become a full human if not prevented from doing so. A 2-month fetus is not viable.
1. Judicial activism is when a judge does something without legal basis. Liberals have accused judges of judicial activism before, they just run to the ACLU instead.
2. Viable as in no problems with the fetus. If the fetus has no flaws, it will develop fully. I think I misused the term. What is the actual term for a non-flawed fetus?
Ok, I just had to answer that, but now I'm out. Thanks for the discussion. Hopefully I'll have time to continue this tomorrow.
Please understand that I think reasonable people can disagree on this. However, the Court was reasonable in its decision. THERE IS A MECHANISM IN PLACE TO CHANGE IT IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT.
You keep talking of the mechinism, but that mechanism is a failure! It takes months if not years to pass an amendment, and only a couple of weeks to decide a case. Roe v. Wade has had a great impact on the U.S. than about a third of the amendments, and yet it did not take even a fraction of a majority of Americans to pass it.
Everyone on the right likes to talk about people being "anti-American." I don't like to throw that around, but you just called the mechanism put in place by our founding fathers a failure. If you don't like it, use it just one more time to change the process of amendment itself. Or use it just one more time to take judicial review away from the courts. It's supposed to take a long time to amend the consitution; that's what the founders intended.
No, I didn't say the system our Founding Fathers put in place was a failure, I said the mechanism for change is a failure, in that it has been changed over the years. Congress was never intended to be so slow. The Supremes were never intended to decide what classifies as alive. Things have changed and they need to be changed back. Career politicians and lobbies weren't originally intended, but here they are.
Where in the constitution does it say specifically that the Supreme Court doesn't have the power to declare what is alive? Show me the language that says that? Aren't you engaging in the same sort of activism by reading that into the Constitution? The mechanism for changing the constitution is the same as it has always been. The machanism is a failure, the founders put it into place, so the mechanism the founder put into place is a failure.
Judicial review is not what is in question. judicial review is the power of the courts to decide if specific actions of the Congress or Executive branch are constitutional, not deciding on the legality of abortion or gay marriage.
Listen to yourself. What did the Court do when it said abortion bans were illegal? It exercised its power, which you just admitted it had, to decide that the specific action of Congress in banning abortion was unconstitutional. Your problem is PRECISELY with judicial review.
Roe v. Wade had nothing to do with Congress. It was about Roe, now a strong advocate of anti-abortion laws, wanting an abortion and Texas not allowing it. The entire case was about whether or not states can prevent abortion.
Excuse me, I substituted Congress for the State of Texas. So, do you believe there is a difference when it comes to who violates provisions of the constitution? My point was that in Roe, the Court exercised judicial review of the law. If it can do that with Congress, it certainly can with the state legislatures. The Constitution is the law of the land, and the state legislatures must adhere to it. The Court held that the law violated the constitution. That's judicial review.
By the way, the fact the Roe is not an anti-abortion advocate has no bearing on this discussion. That kind of stuff might make others waiver, but it won't work on me.
Wasn't trying to make you waver. Just pointing out that even the person who first brought it up realized that abortion is wrong. If the initial advocate thinks it's wrong, then that hurts the credibility of the argument.
Not really, because there are plenty of others who might just as well have been the plaintiff in that case who think it's wrong for the government to forbid women to have an abortion, and who still believe that. The argument stands on its own merits.
No it can't. It is given judicial review over the other two branches as part of the system of checks and balances, which by the way, is being destroyed by judicial activism. And I'm not saying that the Supreme Court doesn't have the power to do stuff like that, I'm just saying they were wrong. Oh, and you keep saying I should change it then, well I intend to. That's one of the reasons I'm going into politics. I'm surprised you haven't attacked my age yet, though. Most people do by now.
I'm not sure what this refers to, but if it refers to my saying you can take the power away from the courts, sure you can. You can amend the Constitution to change the distribution of power and the system of checks and balances. The power to amend includes the power to make the branches no longer coequal. Fair enough, some justices on the Court believe Roe was wrong. Some don't. That's the nature of the beast.
The Judicial Branch is covered the least in the Constitution, but they have the most unchecked power. You are right in that we need a fast response system, but we need to figure out some way to prevent abuse. That's why I said all new declarations should be sent through Congress.
But, if all new declarations have to be sent through Congress to approve, the Court basically has NO power over Congress. The three branches are supposed to be co-equal. The Court doesn't have unchecked power because it is made up of justices appointed by the Chief Executive. That is a check on the Court. Congress also has some say over the jurisdiction of the Court. The Court also has no say in amending the Constitution, that is up to Congress and the states. The power is situated just fine.
actually, the Court could rule Congress's actions unconstitutional, as was originally intended. By declaring things before someone else acts, they are jumping the gun and stepping out of line. The Judiciary is supposed to be reactive, not proactive.
What did they declare before someone acted? In Roe, the state of Texas acted, and the Court reacted and said the law was unconstitutional. The Court didn't declare Texas couldn't pass a law before they passed it; the Court waited until after Texas passed the law and the law was challenged to declare it unconstitutional. How is that not reactive?
They declared that life begins after the first trimester, proactively. They decided that abortion is legal, proactively. How can they declare what Texas did as unconstitutional when there is no constitutional basis for abortion being allowed or disallowed? They have to wait for a law to be passed regarding abortion before they can make rulings on it, not just decide for themselves. That is nine people who have gotten to decide the fates of 40-50 million Americans.
Like I said, arguments stand on their own. I certainly noted your age, but you've demonstrated that you are more capable of at least being reasonable than most people I debate online. I think there are probably things you think you know that you don't, like I did before I started law school. I don't remember if it was you or your friend yesterday who said freedom of speech only applies to the federal government and not the states. But, overall, you have a pretty good understanding of things.
I can see what you are getting at, and I greatly appreciate you taking the time to prove me wrong, but can you give me an example of something else with a beating heart that isn't alive?
That's a false syllogism you just tried to pull there. All squares are rectangles, but that doesn't mean all rectangles are squares. An person has a beating heart, but not all things with a beating heart are alive
The Court did. They got it from the text of the 14th amendment. It says "All persons BORN or naturalized in the United States." It went beyond that because science shows that even pre-born babies are a life. So, the court based it on the text of the constitution and on science.
Did you typoe, because you wrote "Even pre-born babies are a life" That supports our point. Oh, and you are taking the 14th out of context. That born or naturalized is citizenship only. So, basically, they aren't citizens of the U.S., meaning, we are not only killing people, see your science arg, but we have no right to because they don't fall under the jurisdiction of the U.S.!
No, some pre-born babies are alive. Just not until later in the pregnancy. As far as the 14th amendment, if they are not US citizens, they have NO RIGHTS under the 14th amendment, so the woman's right to privacy trumps.
How does having a baby affect her right to privacy, why does the Court have the power to decide that we can kill non-citizens, and why would I be arrested if I shot illegals, since they are technically protected the same as babies.
It is her right to privately decide what she will do with her body. She cannot be compelled to carry an unwanted pregancy to term, because that is her private decision to make. And excuse me, I misspoke about non-citizens not having ANY rights. Certain rights, like life, still apply, and that was not the basis upon which Roe was decided.
But if they have a right to life, then why do we deny it? How was Roe v. Wade decided then, on privacy? So privacy trumps life? Oh, and why does she get to decide what to do with her child's body? afterall, it may be her body it's in, but it's the child's body that's destroyed. Oh, and like I said, in most cases, it was her choice to engage in an act that could lead to pregnancy. Debate is to be had on rape, but carelessness should not be an excuse.
You assume they are alive with your question about denying life. Court says they're not alive. She gets to decide what to do with her child's body because it is a parasite in her body. If an unwanted burglar broke into your house, you could shoot him, because it's your house. Well, it's her body. OMG, I'm so tired of arguing about this. I'm not saying you're wrong or unreasonable. But your argument has been rejected by the court in favor of what the court found to me MORE reasonable.
parasite, but isn't a child a parasite on you? They take your resources without compensation. They are a drain on yourself and your house. So, should we be able to shoot kids? Oh, and the Court says they aren't alive, but once again, Judicial Activism. We should leave the legislation to Congress. They could have petitioned Congress to pass a law about it. it's not like the nine supremes have anything they're in a hurry to get to.
No, you can put them up for adoption or into foster care once they're alive. There's no alternative to aborting them while they are still in the womb. The Court does not have the power to petition Congress. It must decide the case presented before it, and Congress is always free to change the law (provided it's not unconstitutional, which in this case it is) or the people an amend the constitution.
The point is, the fetus can be considered a parasite inside the unwanting mother. If it cannot survive outside the unwanting mother, it has no right to compel her to keep it alive.
Read the amendment again, smartass. Point to where the word "race" or "gender" appear. No, it says "No state shall deprive ANY PERSON" due process or "deny ANY PERSON" equal protection. Get it right before you open your mouth.
I'm sorry for my language. I just get EXTREMELY frustrated with people who think they have their justification for discrimination all figured out and it turns out they know nothing.
Oh, and national gay marriage is unconstitutional. Ninth: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or the people. Marriage is not given to the U.S. or prohibited to the states anywhere in the Constitution.
You ignore the fact that the Court has already determined that marriage is covered under the 14th amendment as a fundamental right the STATES cannot abridge. Let me ask you this, is the Loving v. Virginia case unconstitutional? In other words, is it unconstitutional to tell states they can't have laws against interracial marriage?
I don't view it as Unconstitutional, I view it as wrong that the government gets into marriage, but marriage is not explicitly denied to the states or given to the U.S., so it can't be said it is a power of the gov.
You're dodging the question, or at least undermining your argument. Why don't you consider it unconstitutional for the feds to tell states they can't ban interracial marriage, but you would consider it unconstitutional for them to tell states they can't ban gay marriage?
i do consider it unconstitutional in both cases, like I said. Actually, i have a problem with states decided that. i don't think government can get into it, but the lower downt he chain it is, the more likely to reflect the people it is. So, where did I say I didn't view it as unconstitutional to tell states they can ban interracial marriage?
Again, your comment wasn't sorted correctly. You started with "I don't see it as unconstitutional." The only thing I remember asking you if you thought it was unconstitutional was that. Again, sorry if I got it wrong because of this ridiculous sorting. However, you're about as mainstream as Ron Paul if you think states should be able to ban interracial marriage.
Before Loving v. Virignia, a black man and a white man both had the same marraige right: to marry someone of the same race. It's the same argument. It didn't work then, and it doesn't work now.
I'm sorry, so just because a new born baby takes money to clothe, clean, and feed, which might be mentally painfull to endure, can I just "terminate" it too?
Because it can't survive outside the womb, because it can't feel pain. Again, the substance of this issue is not my concern. Argue to the Court. I'm done talking about this issue.
What this guy is saying is that it's okay to kill babies, even if they're two weeks away from breathing! Just as long as they're on the inside. And why IS it considered doubled homicide if a pregnant woman is killed if an unborn child is not a person?
Point out where I wrote that. Don't engage in intentional misrepresentation of what I wrote. I said there is a point at which an unborn baby is considered a person. That is directly at odds with what you just said I wrote. It's not considered double homicide everywhere if a pregnant woman is killed. But AGAIN, I don't care about the substance of this argument. What you wrote is a perfectly reasonable argument to make to a court. The court then gets to decide, and if you don't like it, amend.
If no law specifically states it, then it is up to the court to determine what the constitution means. The Court decided in Roe v. Wade when a baby was a person for purposes of abortion. It wasn't activism because there was no other place to find the answer to the question.
So they get to make it up? How is it fair that the court gets to decide whatever they want as long as 2/3 of the country doesn't say no? Do you know how many people in Congress don't care about stuff like that? Oh and, just because they didn't ask Congress to figure it out and pass a law, we now have to get 2/3 of the Congress instead of a simple majority to decide? How is that fair?
You don't seem to grasp that the court sometimes determines what the law is. But the FINAL decision lies with the people who can override a court's decision with an amendment. If you are so sure you're right, all you have to do is amend the constitution to say "A baby becomes a person for purposes of this constitution at conception."
Why would the Court get to decide what the law is? That's Congress's decision! The Court is here to tell us how a law applies, not what it is! They can not decide on something without legal merit. That is judicial activism at its fullest.
Oh, about abortion? The woman has a right to privacy in that she doesn't want anyone to know she kills babies. And porn? That is expressing the pervetedness of people who have no life, so resort to profanity.
No, the woman's privacy right is in not bearing the pain of childbirth against her will. Porn: that's your opinion, and you're free not to watch porn. doesn't mean you can stop others from watching or producing it. That's the nature of free speech, you have to endure speech from those you disagree with in exchange for your own freedom to express yourself.
How is that privacy? And another point, what about the draft for Vietnam? I'm sure that none or few of them wanted to die, yet they did for their country, does that mean that right now, any veteran should be able to sue the US government?
If the Court said so, yes. If the Court distinguishes this situation from that of a pregnant woman, then no. Again, that's the COURT'S job. And they're not acting unconstitutionally if they decide in a manner you don't like.
Well, you're not. That kind of sucks doesn't it? That is the same point you were arguing with Jeff about. Don't complain about it if it is a decision made by the Supreme Court, because you can't change it!
no, they are being activists in that they are saying what is and is not allowed without a clear cut legal reason. if it important enough, we'll amend the Constitution to include it, or just pass a good ole fashioned law. The Court can not decide whether or not something is to be allowed because they can't be challenged. Congress can pass a law, as it was intended, and the Court can decide on the law, as it was intended. They can not circumvent Congress.
Every decision by the Court is pages and pages of legal reasoning. So, to say there is no clear cut legal reason is wrong. Just because you disagree with the reasoning doesn't mean they are activists, it just means you would have come to a different conclusion if you were on the Court, which you're not. Again, the founders put a mechanism in place for dealing with this, the amendment process.
You keep bringing up Amendments. so you are saying, in a five-four, the Court says, "The sky is orange" We then need to bring the country to a halt for months to get enough support for an Amendment saying "No, it's blue"? Amendments are not to overturn a Court decision. It is far easier to make a Court decision than to pass an amendment. and using my earlier example, the amendment would most likely fail and the sky would be forever orange.
But we wouldn't have the power. Most members of Congress don't give a damn about anything that doesn't affect reelection. You are saying the Court should be the most powerful branch of government. They serve for life without worrying about popularity, They are protected from consequence so they can decide whatever they want, and it is nearly impossible to impeach them. Now you say they should have the power to control the law as well?
I'm saying that our system is what it is, and if you don't like it, take it up with the founders, not me. Again, if this is such a big issue, then it WILL effect reelection of Congressmen and Senators. Indeed, appointment of strict constructionist judges IS the primary issue for many voters. The system is working as it is supposed to.
It's referring to the woman who was in a car accident and was in a permanent vegetative state. She told her husband she wouldn't want to live like that, so he sought to have her disconnected from the feeding tube. She even moved around and made sounds, but they were all involuntary movements because the thinking part of her brain was like slime.
and how does that apply to this? She was dead, not "not yet alive" but dead. she would not recover and it was her will to end her life. Find a baby that is viable and yet will never develop into a human being. Find a baby that has a will that states they wish to die. That example is irrelevant because 1. she chose to be killed and 2. she had no chance of returning to normalcy, but a baby will.
He asked me for an example of something that was not alive but had a beating heart. I gave him an example. I didn't say it was exactly the same thing. I'm done talking about the merits of abortion. I'm concerned with the system.
Oh, and when do they get to elect the president? Afterall, the right to vote is not guaranteed anywhere in the Constitution. So me where it is guaranteed that the people get to select the president.
Article 2 lays out the way in which the president is elected. It's the electoral college. You are technically right, a state gets to decide how it apportions its electors, but every state does it by popular vote. What's your point though?
My point is the Supreme Court can decide voting is unconstitutional. Then they can give the ability to select the president to their buddies in that state. We would have to pass an Amendment, but that would take months, if not years. Allowing them to not have to follow clear law allows them too much power.
There would be no basis for doing that. Just because it's not mandated doesn't mean it's prohibited. Point to me one provision in the constitution that they could even begin to say means popular voting for president is PROHIBITED and we'll continue this discussion. Other than that, if they tried to do it, people would take up their contitutionally protected arms and march on Washington.
Exactly. They should march on Washington to do that, so why don't we do that everytime the Court declares something the majority of Americans oppose and Congress does nothing? It's because many people don't realize the impact Court decisions have until years later.
People are sheep. Nothing is important enough unless it threatens their life. That's why people allow facist governments to take over and only rebel when they are threatened. By the time you realize you must fight back for your beliefs, it's too late. allowing the Court to decide for Congress just helps the process.
It's the way our system works. Let me ask you this. Are we better off now than we were in 1800? Was Brown v. Board of Education judicial activism? You mentioned the "spirit" of the constitution before. Isn't the spirit of the constitution freedom? Allowing Congress to do whatever it wants is contrary to the spirit of the Constitution. I would submit that SCOTUS decisions have made this country a LOT better. So, don't be so quick to talk doomsday scenarios.
abortion is a privacy issue? Ok, so how does that affect the legality of abortion? I mean, how would a woman being protected from people finding out she got an abortion affect whether or not she can actually get one? Oh, and how is porn freedom of speech? What belief do you expouse by producing porn? What political or religious statement are you making, other than that you like money? Oh, and why is marriage a fundamental right? It seems more like a privelage to me.
It's a privacy issue because the government is not allowed to tell a woman she can't expel something from her body that she doesn't want in there. The government cannot force a woman to endure the pains of pregnancy against her will. Porn is freedom of speech because the Supreme Court says that's what the first amendment means. If we don't like their decision, we can amend the constitution to overrule it. That's how it works. Doesn't make them "activist judges."
Same goes for marriage. Court says it's a fundamental right under the constitution. Again, it can "seem to you" to be anything, but you're not vested with the authority to make the decision, the Court is. If you don't like it, amend the constitution.
But is the Court interprets the Second Amendment to mean clubs only or maybe even bear (animal) arms, would that be correct? Judicial activism is the abuse of the privelage to interpret.
So she can kill an baby to avoid suffering the pain of the consequences of something that was usually her choice? Oh, and if she doesn't want it there, I bet the baby doesn't want to die. Oh, and the First Amendment does not prevent the illegalization of porn by states, only by Congress. Go ahead and check it. Finally, it makes them activist judges because they are abusing their privelage to interpret the law to meet their political ends.
A baby is not considered a person under current law. If you don't like it, try to change it. "Usually by choice"? The constitution isn't concerned with "usually," it has to be concerned with the extreme cases.
Oh, so it's okay to kill a baby because they're not technically a person? The I could go out and jill all the babies I want and only get in trouble with the ASPCA? And also, why is it considered double homicide if a pregnant woman is killed?
The extreme cases? Really? So what about my right to murder someone who I dislike to an extreme degree? The Constitution is supposed to be concerned with the norm. They are called extremes for a reason.
Oh, and the baby not being considered a peron is from the Court too, right?
You are quite smug about the First Amendment, aren't you? Yes, the original amendment only applied to the federal government. However, in Gitlow v. New York, the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th amendment, with its language "No state shall...," applies the free speech clause of the first amendment to the states. Many of the other amendments in the Bill of Rights have been incorporated in other cases through the 14th amendment.
Judicial activism. (Said in sing song way) Ok, so when it says, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privelages or immunities of citizens of the United States" it really means rights guaranteed by the U.S. that the U.S. won't abridge?
If the Court ruled that gay marriage is Unconstitutional, wouldn't you accuse them of judicial activism? We're just calling them on it because as of right now, the only ones not benefitting from the activism are us. If tables turned...?
I absolutely would NOT accuse them of judicial activism. I would disagree with their decision, but I wouldn't call them activist. If they said nothing in the constitution allows us to tell states they can't ban gay marriage, it would be a reasonable conclusion to reach, since, as you point out, there's nothing there specifically about gay marriage. Again, I've made my argument about why that would be wrong, but again, I can lobby to amend the constitution if I don't like it.
What's your point? We're having a discussion about the mechanics of the system, not whether I can win. Of course a constitutional amendment allowing gay marriage would never pass at the current time or probably any time in the next century. Totally irrelevant to our discussion. Please, it's hard enough to have a discussion on here without stupid, irrelevant comments.
But if the amendment won't pass, then that means the majority don't want it! It's a cry from the people saying "NO!" We are a democracy, so it is majority rule. So you are basically saying "We know the people don't want it, so we are using the Coursts to get it through anyway" It is very relevant to the discussion.
"we are a melting pot thats all we are. we are no culture". quite untrue. culture is a way of life, and people residing within the american borders or possessing american citizenship have various different ways of life. the whites of anglo descent that have been here the longest have the most successful culture, which other emigrating euros started to resemble, although even now you detected "italian americans" or such. assimilation is probably impossible for non-whites given human tribality.
Your comment was extremely offensive to androgynous people. I'm serious. "America is not excellent; it's androgynous." What's wrong with being androgynous that precludes an androgynous person from being excellent? Again, very offensive. Not unexpected from someone like you though. Of course, everything that you personally stand for is what America stands for (and has always stood for). Very convenient.
If one is androgynous for no reason of birth, this is something outside of one's control. Culture is a creature altogether different. If we are culturally androgynous, then it is due to apathy and deconstructionism.
I don't claim to stand for what every American stood of. I claim that America has a history that includes factors such as religion, traditions, language, and culture. Nothing more.
Someone like me? I wasn't aware that we knew one another.
What about people who choose to present themselves as androgynous? Are they per se "not excellent?" Again, whether you care or not, very offensive. As for my "someone like you" language, I simply meant an ethnocentric conservative Christian white male. I get this from the radio segments I've listened to on here, and although I don't know you personally, I've heard enough to know what kind of person you are generally. The fact that you don't know me is obviously irrelevant.
Yes, people who intentionally present themselves as androgynous are "not excellent." Whether we are talking about intentionally acting/looking more effeminate or masculine. Not too worried about you taking offense.
Ethnocentric? I am married to an Asian! My kids are mixed! haha We are talking about the celebration of diverse cultures and traditions. They vary in language, religions, histories, political systems, etc. How the heck is this ethnocentrism?
Again, I'm not surprised you don't care if you offend people. You think you are great and anyone who acts differently from what you perceive as "normal" is "not excellent."
Well, your wife then, no doubt, has "melted" into American culture, right? Have you forced her to shed her culture and assimilate into yours? If so, that's ethnocentric. If not, you are not practicing what you have preached in this video.
If someone has difficulty knowing whether or not they are a man or a woman, or they dress like the opposite sex, or they intentionally choose to dress and live in such a manner that people do not know whether they are a man or a woman, then that person is in need of psychiatric attention.
My wife's mother came from Korea. Willingly learned the language, got her GED, and raised two kids on her own after the dad abandoned them. I didn't force anything. I wouldn't marry a "project." Absurd.
Well, your wife's story doesn't seem to make your point that you are not ethnocentric because you married an Asian. You married an Asian who was raised here most of her life and who for all intents and purposes espouses your culture. The fact remains that you believe your culture is superior and that other cultures have no place here; people of those cultures must adopt your culture.
Fair enough. I believe someone who believes in an invisible man in the sky who is everywhere all of the time and who knows everything and who watches our every move and judges us needs psychiatric attention. The only reason you don't seek it is because so many other people have the same condition that it seems normal.
A. I only have two or three black friends. I have a lot of black acquaintances who I would stop and talk to were I to see them, but we aren't close on a personal level.
B. I have no gay friends. I know gay people. I am their acquaintance. I have spoken with them at great length. But I have none that I would consider to be my friend.
You don't explicitly claim to stand for what every American "stood of," however, you claim that America is defined by its religion (Christian I presume, your religion), language (English, your language), traditions (like...slavery, male dominance? what traditions?), and culture (again very vague. Doesn't this just encompasses language, religion, and other things that could be mentioned specifically?) Point is, your vision of what America stands for just happens to make you a perfect fit.
Yes, America was defined by it's religion, language, and traditions. These would be Christianity, English, various holidays, and a natural aristocracy.
You act like slavery was something unique to the US. That is historical illiteracy. Male dominance. What do you take as examples of male dominance? Voting? Why not talk about land-owner dominance? Most voters had to own land. This would be the rich and the agrarian.
You seem to miss my point. My point is we have some very idealistic founding documents. "All men are created equal" was never practiced in this country, although we like to think it is. But, we move further and further toward that goal. However, your values are directly counter to that. You believe Christian, English-speaking people are created better than others. However, you so graciously allow others to "improve" themselves by adopting your religion and language. How nice of you.
That is retarded. I don't believe Christians were created better. I believe all were created equal, but people's decisions after their having been "created" make them better or worse. Simple ethical hierarchy.
Yes, I believe that people and nations are better when they adopt Christianity.
People who adopt English improve themselves? In certain countries, yes. In countries where the common language of the masses is not English, then no.
You like using language offensive to people with disabilities. In the process, you sound like a fifth grader.
I'm not going to debate with you over why Christianity (and all religion for that matter) is foolish, but again, your religion just happens to be the correct one.
Why can't Spanish become our national language? If we let it just continue to become more prominent, it could theoretically replace English as the dominant language. Would you object to that?
Retarded? My brother in mentally retarded. The only people that have complained about the use of the term over the last 25 years of my life (since my brother was in his accident) have been educational elites and politicians.
If we get to the point where we are Meximerica, then this may happen. I'm an immigration restrictionist and pray this never happens. But, in the instance where they become the majority, we may be forced to do so.
You remind me of the Seinfeld episode where Jerry thinks the dentist is converting to Judaism so he can make fun of Jews. Every time you make an offensive comment you claim it's ok because you have someone in your family who belongs to the group you say offensive things about. It doesn't make it ok. The only reason he's not offended is because he doesn't have the capacity to be. I don't hear the dead complaining about being offended, yet why do we consider it offensive to speak ill of them?
My parents, the parents of other children with mental retardation or other injuries, don't have a problem with it. It is amazing when people who haven't lived the life talk a big game. That's like a Frenchman telling us how we ought to speak of our own kin. Truly absurd.
I had this discussion with the professor of my class on Special Education. She was not happy that I used the term. I asked if she had any parent or family member complain about its use. It was the end of the discussion.
Your professor gave up too easily. It's one thing to refer to someone as "retarded" who actually is in conversation about that person's condition. It's quite another to use the word against someone to whom it obviously doesn't apply as an insult. When you accuse someone of having a condition as an insult, how can it not be insulting to the people who actually have the condition?
On a side note, I spoke with a few people from our local group that works with people who have mental retardation and other handicaps and disabilities about your getting on my case. They asked if you were a teacher or a politician. Irony? No, just people who are familiar with the politically correct nonsense.
I did not say slavery was unique to the US, so don't put words in my mouth and then accuse me of cultural illiteracy for something I never even brought up. My point was that we have a lot of "traditions" in this country that are not good. What makes us a different type of country? Most countries have an official religion and an official language. What makes us different is that we don't. The US is its people, no matter their religion or language or whatever. That's what makes us different.
No need to talk tough here, honcho. The insinuation, as it appeared to me, was that slavery was a tradition unique to America.
btw- It wasn't a tradition.
We have always been different, but not always for the reasons you mentioned. Our colonies and early states weren't too much different from those countries whose characteristics you malign.
You know what they say about people who assume. The way people talk about tradition today is in terms of "it's the way things always were." Slavery was here from the beginning, and there was obviously much resistance to its abolition-- we fought a civil war over it. Do you want to bet that those who didn't want to see it go didn't argued regularly that it was "un-American" to abolish it? I'll take that wager.
Once again, let me repeat myself: We aren't talking about dragging 2008 back to the 18th century. All we are talking about is defending those good and noble things that made America what it was.
I'll discuss slavery and the Civil War any day. You make a rather bizarre assumption that the vast majority of the south fought to retain slaves or that they treated slavery as an American tradition rather than an economic practice. It would be a rabbit trail, but oh well.
Finally, to go back to your analogy. It's pretty clear that America was born androgynous. The Constitution does not establish a religion. In fact, it explicitly states that we will NOT establish a religion. It could have said "Although individual freedom to exercise religion shall not be abridged, the United States shall be a Christian nation." Doesn't say that, and this is very deliberate. Neither does the Constitution establish an official language.
A. The Constitution did not create a culture. A culture created a nation that was to be guided by a social contract. And we were around for some time prior to the Constitution.
B. Read Justice Joseph Story on the first amendment to know what the founders and others in that period understood it to mean. He was appointed to the Supreme Court by Mr. Secularist, James Madison.
3. Why would the constitution need to establish a common language. That is absurd.
A. Ok, well the social contract the culture created says we don't have an established religion and we don't have an official language.
B. Justice Story, just like every other person, has his opinion. It's wrong. I can quote you lots of other equally "important" people who disagree with him. The language of the first amendment is clear. If its writers wished for it to say something else, they knew the English language and how to write the amendment to say that.
We had a common language and a common religion. It wasn't until mass immigration and the advent of 20th century liberalism when this became an issue. Even going back as far as Theodore Roosevelt, we had a common language. He went so far as insisting that "hyphenated citizens" aren't even American.
Story was wrong. Where was the outcry? Founders were still alive. Madison appointed him. Yet no outcry? One of the most influential jurists giving an wrong opinion, and nothing but silence? Stange.
Reagan appointed O'Connor. I don't think he got what he bargained for either. As for Roosevelt, you seem not to get that just because someone held a high office does not make them the flawless heroes we like to think of them as. People back then held offensive opinions just like people today hold offensive opinions. 100 years from now when gays are marrying regularly and no one cares anymore, everyone will talk about how stupid and bigoted today's conservatives were.
Define bigoted for me. The American Heritage would label you, as well as me, 2/3 a bigot. You folks use this kind of prattle when you have no argument left. You resort to name calling and non-empirical prophecies about what America will be like 100 years from now. That is all you have. How unfortunate.
Bigoted would be thinking your way is the objective best way for no other reason than it is your way. Continuing to hold outdated ideas about whole groups of people based on your observations of individuals. And please, who started the name-calling? And listen to you talking about non-empirical prophecies. You don't seem to have a problem with them as long as they come from the Bible. I'm basing mine from current trends and our country's history of extending rights to people.
I don't think my way is the best way because it is my way. That is absurd.
Well, in the Bible, if you were found to be a false prophet speaking in the name of God, you were put to death. You are lucky. You not only speak on your own behalf, but project it far enough away to save yourself from humiliation in the possible instance that you are wrong. Convenient, really.
There are a lot of minor things the Bible would put me to death for. Which is why civilized people shouldn't be looking to that fairy tale book for their law and guidance on morality.
I'm not projecting it far enough into the future to save myself possible humiliation. I think we will have gay marriage in every state in this country and recognized by the federal government in my lifetime. I could be wrong, but again, I still believe it's inevitable.
The Bible puts no one to death. The Old Testament does. The New Testament is against execution and in favor of forgiveness. I hate how so many atheists and anti-Christians attack the Bible based upon the Jewish part. The Bible is the New Testament with the Old Testament for background.
Well, it seems like we won't reach an agreement for awhile, but at least we can end on a friendly note. I have to study for finals, because, apparantly it's not too late for my teachers to take me out of my honors classes next year if I do poorly. I probably won't be as active on YouTube for the next couple of weeks.
JeffPatterson93 3 years ago
I understand. Good luck on finals. Hopefully we can continue sometime down the road.
J0hn3577 3 years ago
Ok, so even though I prefer generally to have these conversations in view of the public so people can read and evaluate the arguments, YouTube is EXTREMELY frustrating to debate through comments because of the character limits. If you don't mind, I would prefer to take it to private messages.
J0hn3577 3 years ago
I wanted to present the other side of the coin of one argument you made yesterday, and that is that change isn't supposed to come so slowly. THAT is precisely why I believe in a living Constitution instead of the strict constructionist view that you believe in. Because, when we are presented with obvious wrongs, like bans on interracial marriage. It will simply take too long for the amendment process to rectify the situation. Thus, we have the general language of the 14th amendment.
J0hn3577 3 years ago
You believe that judges shouldn't read into the constitution because it would be too difficult and take too long to amend the constitution to override their decision. I believe the judge SHOULD read into it because it would take too long to amend it to guarantee the right that can and should be read into it. You would obviously disagree, but both are perfectly reasonable approaches. That's why we have nine justices appointed by different presidents each with his or her own approach.
J0hn3577 3 years ago
sorry if it seems like I'm running or anything. If you noticed, BillyFred has been quiet for a while. We go to the same school and we have to get ready for finals. sorry I have to go. I'll try to continue this tommorrow, but if you want to keep it up, feel free to go to my channel or send private messages.
JeffPatterson93 3 years ago
That is completely different. That is no longer a person. A shell of what was once there. A fetus is a shell of what WILL be there.
billyfred42 3 years ago
No, a fetus is a shell of what MIGHT be there. Same as a sperm cell in my testicles. Some religious people think it is a sin to masturbate because you are wasting potential life. Where do we draw the line? Who gets to decide? Someone has to. Our system provides the answer, it's all three branches of government, including the courts, working within the framework provided.
J0hn3577 3 years ago
No, a viable fetus will become a full human if not prevented from doing so. Oh, and when does it give the Supremes the ability to decide on completely new concepts. Isn't the process of adapting to changes the duty of the other two? Isn't the Court put in place to keep us as close the the constitution as possible? Judicial review, not judicial activism, which, btw, are opposites.
JeffPatterson93 3 years ago
Judicial review and judicial activism are not opposites. Judicial activism occurs when a conservative disagrees with the way in which a court exercises judicial review. And yes, a VIABLE fetus will become a full human if not prevented from doing so. A 2-month fetus is not viable.
J0hn3577 3 years ago
1. Judicial activism is when a judge does something without legal basis. Liberals have accused judges of judicial activism before, they just run to the ACLU instead.
2. Viable as in no problems with the fetus. If the fetus has no flaws, it will develop fully. I think I misused the term. What is the actual term for a non-flawed fetus?
Ok, I just had to answer that, but now I'm out. Thanks for the discussion. Hopefully I'll have time to continue this tomorrow.
JeffPatterson93 3 years ago
Please understand that I think reasonable people can disagree on this. However, the Court was reasonable in its decision. THERE IS A MECHANISM IN PLACE TO CHANGE IT IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT.
J0hn3577 3 years ago
You keep talking of the mechinism, but that mechanism is a failure! It takes months if not years to pass an amendment, and only a couple of weeks to decide a case. Roe v. Wade has had a great impact on the U.S. than about a third of the amendments, and yet it did not take even a fraction of a majority of Americans to pass it.
JeffPatterson93 3 years ago
Everyone on the right likes to talk about people being "anti-American." I don't like to throw that around, but you just called the mechanism put in place by our founding fathers a failure. If you don't like it, use it just one more time to change the process of amendment itself. Or use it just one more time to take judicial review away from the courts. It's supposed to take a long time to amend the consitution; that's what the founders intended.
J0hn3577 3 years ago
No, I didn't say the system our Founding Fathers put in place was a failure, I said the mechanism for change is a failure, in that it has been changed over the years. Congress was never intended to be so slow. The Supremes were never intended to decide what classifies as alive. Things have changed and they need to be changed back. Career politicians and lobbies weren't originally intended, but here they are.
JeffPatterson93 3 years ago
Where in the constitution does it say specifically that the Supreme Court doesn't have the power to declare what is alive? Show me the language that says that? Aren't you engaging in the same sort of activism by reading that into the Constitution? The mechanism for changing the constitution is the same as it has always been. The machanism is a failure, the founders put it into place, so the mechanism the founder put into place is a failure.
J0hn3577 3 years ago
Judicial review is not what is in question. judicial review is the power of the courts to decide if specific actions of the Congress or Executive branch are constitutional, not deciding on the legality of abortion or gay marriage.
JeffPatterson93 3 years ago
Listen to yourself. What did the Court do when it said abortion bans were illegal? It exercised its power, which you just admitted it had, to decide that the specific action of Congress in banning abortion was unconstitutional. Your problem is PRECISELY with judicial review.
J0hn3577 3 years ago
Roe v. Wade had nothing to do with Congress. It was about Roe, now a strong advocate of anti-abortion laws, wanting an abortion and Texas not allowing it. The entire case was about whether or not states can prevent abortion.
JeffPatterson93 3 years ago
Excuse me, I substituted Congress for the State of Texas. So, do you believe there is a difference when it comes to who violates provisions of the constitution? My point was that in Roe, the Court exercised judicial review of the law. If it can do that with Congress, it certainly can with the state legislatures. The Constitution is the law of the land, and the state legislatures must adhere to it. The Court held that the law violated the constitution. That's judicial review.
J0hn3577 3 years ago
By the way, the fact the Roe is not an anti-abortion advocate has no bearing on this discussion. That kind of stuff might make others waiver, but it won't work on me.
J0hn3577 3 years ago
Wasn't trying to make you waver. Just pointing out that even the person who first brought it up realized that abortion is wrong. If the initial advocate thinks it's wrong, then that hurts the credibility of the argument.
JeffPatterson93 3 years ago
Not really, because there are plenty of others who might just as well have been the plaintiff in that case who think it's wrong for the government to forbid women to have an abortion, and who still believe that. The argument stands on its own merits.
J0hn3577 3 years ago
No it can't. It is given judicial review over the other two branches as part of the system of checks and balances, which by the way, is being destroyed by judicial activism. And I'm not saying that the Supreme Court doesn't have the power to do stuff like that, I'm just saying they were wrong. Oh, and you keep saying I should change it then, well I intend to. That's one of the reasons I'm going into politics. I'm surprised you haven't attacked my age yet, though. Most people do by now.
JeffPatterson93 3 years ago
I'm not sure what this refers to, but if it refers to my saying you can take the power away from the courts, sure you can. You can amend the Constitution to change the distribution of power and the system of checks and balances. The power to amend includes the power to make the branches no longer coequal. Fair enough, some justices on the Court believe Roe was wrong. Some don't. That's the nature of the beast.
J0hn3577 3 years ago
The Judicial Branch is covered the least in the Constitution, but they have the most unchecked power. You are right in that we need a fast response system, but we need to figure out some way to prevent abuse. That's why I said all new declarations should be sent through Congress.
JeffPatterson93 3 years ago
But, if all new declarations have to be sent through Congress to approve, the Court basically has NO power over Congress. The three branches are supposed to be co-equal. The Court doesn't have unchecked power because it is made up of justices appointed by the Chief Executive. That is a check on the Court. Congress also has some say over the jurisdiction of the Court. The Court also has no say in amending the Constitution, that is up to Congress and the states. The power is situated just fine.
J0hn3577 3 years ago
actually, the Court could rule Congress's actions unconstitutional, as was originally intended. By declaring things before someone else acts, they are jumping the gun and stepping out of line. The Judiciary is supposed to be reactive, not proactive.
JeffPatterson93 3 years ago
What did they declare before someone acted? In Roe, the state of Texas acted, and the Court reacted and said the law was unconstitutional. The Court didn't declare Texas couldn't pass a law before they passed it; the Court waited until after Texas passed the law and the law was challenged to declare it unconstitutional. How is that not reactive?
J0hn3577 3 years ago
They declared that life begins after the first trimester, proactively. They decided that abortion is legal, proactively. How can they declare what Texas did as unconstitutional when there is no constitutional basis for abortion being allowed or disallowed? They have to wait for a law to be passed regarding abortion before they can make rulings on it, not just decide for themselves. That is nine people who have gotten to decide the fates of 40-50 million Americans.
JeffPatterson93 3 years ago
Like I said, arguments stand on their own. I certainly noted your age, but you've demonstrated that you are more capable of at least being reasonable than most people I debate online. I think there are probably things you think you know that you don't, like I did before I started law school. I don't remember if it was you or your friend yesterday who said freedom of speech only applies to the federal government and not the states. But, overall, you have a pretty good understanding of things.
J0hn3577 3 years ago
Oh, you went to law school? I am planning on going. What school do you suggest?
JeffPatterson93 3 years ago
I don't really know what to suggest to you, but I currently go to Rutgers School of Law in Camden, NJ. Just finished my second year.
J0hn3577 3 years ago
I can see what you are getting at, and I greatly appreciate you taking the time to prove me wrong, but can you give me an example of something else with a beating heart that isn't alive?
billyfred42 3 years ago
Terri Schiavo
J0hn3577 3 years ago
A Fetus has a beating heart after three months. It's okay to kill it even then?
billyfred42 3 years ago
Yes, a beating heart is not the determining factor of life.
J0hn3577 3 years ago
Last time I checked, a person without a heart beat was clinically dead.
billyfred42 3 years ago
That's a false syllogism you just tried to pull there. All squares are rectangles, but that doesn't mean all rectangles are squares. An person has a beating heart, but not all things with a beating heart are alive
J0hn3577 3 years ago
An alive person has a beating heart, but not all things with a beating heart are alive*
J0hn3577 3 years ago
so what is the determining factor of life and who determined it? the Courts or Congress. If it was the Courts, what law is it based on?
JeffPatterson93 3 years ago
The Court did. They got it from the text of the 14th amendment. It says "All persons BORN or naturalized in the United States." It went beyond that because science shows that even pre-born babies are a life. So, the court based it on the text of the constitution and on science.
J0hn3577 3 years ago
Did you typoe, because you wrote "Even pre-born babies are a life" That supports our point. Oh, and you are taking the 14th out of context. That born or naturalized is citizenship only. So, basically, they aren't citizens of the U.S., meaning, we are not only killing people, see your science arg, but we have no right to because they don't fall under the jurisdiction of the U.S.!
JeffPatterson93 3 years ago
No, some pre-born babies are alive. Just not until later in the pregnancy. As far as the 14th amendment, if they are not US citizens, they have NO RIGHTS under the 14th amendment, so the woman's right to privacy trumps.
J0hn3577 3 years ago
How does having a baby affect her right to privacy, why does the Court have the power to decide that we can kill non-citizens, and why would I be arrested if I shot illegals, since they are technically protected the same as babies.
JeffPatterson93 3 years ago
It is her right to privately decide what she will do with her body. She cannot be compelled to carry an unwanted pregancy to term, because that is her private decision to make. And excuse me, I misspoke about non-citizens not having ANY rights. Certain rights, like life, still apply, and that was not the basis upon which Roe was decided.
J0hn3577 3 years ago
But if they have a right to life, then why do we deny it? How was Roe v. Wade decided then, on privacy? So privacy trumps life? Oh, and why does she get to decide what to do with her child's body? afterall, it may be her body it's in, but it's the child's body that's destroyed. Oh, and like I said, in most cases, it was her choice to engage in an act that could lead to pregnancy. Debate is to be had on rape, but carelessness should not be an excuse.
JeffPatterson93 3 years ago
You assume they are alive with your question about denying life. Court says they're not alive. She gets to decide what to do with her child's body because it is a parasite in her body. If an unwanted burglar broke into your house, you could shoot him, because it's your house. Well, it's her body. OMG, I'm so tired of arguing about this. I'm not saying you're wrong or unreasonable. But your argument has been rejected by the court in favor of what the court found to me MORE reasonable.
J0hn3577 3 years ago
parasite, but isn't a child a parasite on you? They take your resources without compensation. They are a drain on yourself and your house. So, should we be able to shoot kids? Oh, and the Court says they aren't alive, but once again, Judicial Activism. We should leave the legislation to Congress. They could have petitioned Congress to pass a law about it. it's not like the nine supremes have anything they're in a hurry to get to.
JeffPatterson93 3 years ago
No, you can put them up for adoption or into foster care once they're alive. There's no alternative to aborting them while they are still in the womb. The Court does not have the power to petition Congress. It must decide the case presented before it, and Congress is always free to change the law (provided it's not unconstitutional, which in this case it is) or the people an amend the constitution.
J0hn3577 3 years ago
The point is, the fetus can be considered a parasite inside the unwanting mother. If it cannot survive outside the unwanting mother, it has no right to compel her to keep it alive.
J0hn3577 3 years ago
Well of course they can't! The 14th ammendment says based on gender or race, not if they are gay or straight!
billyfred42 3 years ago
Read the amendment again, smartass. Point to where the word "race" or "gender" appear. No, it says "No state shall deprive ANY PERSON" due process or "deny ANY PERSON" equal protection. Get it right before you open your mouth.
J0hn3577 3 years ago
I'm sorry, I made a mistake. Is that reason to use such vulgar language towards me? I have no quarrel with you, just your views on certain subjects.
billyfred42 3 years ago
I'm sorry for my language. I just get EXTREMELY frustrated with people who think they have their justification for discrimination all figured out and it turns out they know nothing.
J0hn3577 3 years ago
Why is a musket any different from a machine gun? It can kill the same amout of people, it might just take longer.
billyfred42 3 years ago
Yep. The more that the people can do the better. Get rid of Welfare, and universal health care.
billyfred42 3 years ago
Oh, and national gay marriage is unconstitutional. Ninth: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or the people. Marriage is not given to the U.S. or prohibited to the states anywhere in the Constitution.
JeffPatterson93 3 years ago
You ignore the fact that the Court has already determined that marriage is covered under the 14th amendment as a fundamental right the STATES cannot abridge. Let me ask you this, is the Loving v. Virginia case unconstitutional? In other words, is it unconstitutional to tell states they can't have laws against interracial marriage?
J0hn3577 3 years ago
I don't view it as Unconstitutional, I view it as wrong that the government gets into marriage, but marriage is not explicitly denied to the states or given to the U.S., so it can't be said it is a power of the gov.
JeffPatterson93 3 years ago
You're dodging the question, or at least undermining your argument. Why don't you consider it unconstitutional for the feds to tell states they can't ban interracial marriage, but you would consider it unconstitutional for them to tell states they can't ban gay marriage?
J0hn3577 3 years ago
Because that goes against what this nation was founded upon. It wasn't founded upon white supremecy.
billyfred42 3 years ago
REALLY????? What do you call slavery???? That's about the stupidest thing I've ever heard.
J0hn3577 3 years ago
i do consider it unconstitutional in both cases, like I said. Actually, i have a problem with states decided that. i don't think government can get into it, but the lower downt he chain it is, the more likely to reflect the people it is. So, where did I say I didn't view it as unconstitutional to tell states they can ban interracial marriage?
JeffPatterson93 3 years ago
Again, your comment wasn't sorted correctly. You started with "I don't see it as unconstitutional." The only thing I remember asking you if you thought it was unconstitutional was that. Again, sorry if I got it wrong because of this ridiculous sorting. However, you're about as mainstream as Ron Paul if you think states should be able to ban interracial marriage.
J0hn3577 3 years ago
I don't think they should be able to, but I don't think the U.S. has the Constitutional ability to say they can't.
JeffPatterson93 3 years ago
Gays have rights to marry under the current laws! A gay man can marry any woman that I can.
billyfred42 3 years ago
Before Loving v. Virignia, a black man and a white man both had the same marraige right: to marry someone of the same race. It's the same argument. It didn't work then, and it doesn't work now.
J0hn3577 3 years ago
But 1. there is no serious religious dispute there.
2. The U.S. has no right to enter marriage
3. The Court is not an infallible entity, it is comprised of nine very human people.
4. An example of judicial activism should not be used as a precedent for further judicial activism.
JeffPatterson93 3 years ago
1. not sure what you're referring to
2. Then you think it's unconstitutional to tell states they can't ban interracial marriage?
3. you're right, amend the constitution if you disagree with them, or elect presidents that will apoint justices you agree with.
4. your characterization assumes activism is occurring. if you don't like a decision, amend the constitution to override it.
J0hn3577 3 years ago
1. sorry, can't find original post to answer this.
2. yes
3. but then you do the same. We need to stop judicial activism, not take turns reaping the benefits
4. activism is occuring. prove otherwise. They make decisions based upon their beliefs, not the spirit of the Constitution as they are supposed to.
JeffPatterson93 3 years ago
I'm sorry, so just because a new born baby takes money to clothe, clean, and feed, which might be mentally painfull to endure, can I just "terminate" it too?
billyfred42 3 years ago
No, because that baby is a person at that point.
J0hn3577 3 years ago
So why isn't it a person before?
billyfred42 3 years ago
Because it can't survive outside the womb, because it can't feel pain. Again, the substance of this issue is not my concern. Argue to the Court. I'm done talking about this issue.
J0hn3577 3 years ago
Who decides if it's a person? Is it law, or just another thing the Court declared?
JeffPatterson93 3 years ago
What this guy is saying is that it's okay to kill babies, even if they're two weeks away from breathing! Just as long as they're on the inside. And why IS it considered doubled homicide if a pregnant woman is killed if an unborn child is not a person?
billyfred42 3 years ago
Point out where I wrote that. Don't engage in intentional misrepresentation of what I wrote. I said there is a point at which an unborn baby is considered a person. That is directly at odds with what you just said I wrote. It's not considered double homicide everywhere if a pregnant woman is killed. But AGAIN, I don't care about the substance of this argument. What you wrote is a perfectly reasonable argument to make to a court. The court then gets to decide, and if you don't like it, amend.
J0hn3577 3 years ago
So, who decided when a baby is a person? what law was it, and if it was a Court decision, please explain how that is not judicial activism.
JeffPatterson93 3 years ago
If no law specifically states it, then it is up to the court to determine what the constitution means. The Court decided in Roe v. Wade when a baby was a person for purposes of abortion. It wasn't activism because there was no other place to find the answer to the question.
J0hn3577 3 years ago
So they get to make it up? How is it fair that the court gets to decide whatever they want as long as 2/3 of the country doesn't say no? Do you know how many people in Congress don't care about stuff like that? Oh and, just because they didn't ask Congress to figure it out and pass a law, we now have to get 2/3 of the Congress instead of a simple majority to decide? How is that fair?
JeffPatterson93 3 years ago
You don't seem to grasp that the court sometimes determines what the law is. But the FINAL decision lies with the people who can override a court's decision with an amendment. If you are so sure you're right, all you have to do is amend the constitution to say "A baby becomes a person for purposes of this constitution at conception."
J0hn3577 3 years ago
Why would the Court get to decide what the law is? That's Congress's decision! The Court is here to tell us how a law applies, not what it is! They can not decide on something without legal merit. That is judicial activism at its fullest.
JeffPatterson93 3 years ago
Oh, about abortion? The woman has a right to privacy in that she doesn't want anyone to know she kills babies. And porn? That is expressing the pervetedness of people who have no life, so resort to profanity.
billyfred42 3 years ago
No, the woman's privacy right is in not bearing the pain of childbirth against her will. Porn: that's your opinion, and you're free not to watch porn. doesn't mean you can stop others from watching or producing it. That's the nature of free speech, you have to endure speech from those you disagree with in exchange for your own freedom to express yourself.
J0hn3577 3 years ago
How is that privacy? And another point, what about the draft for Vietnam? I'm sure that none or few of them wanted to die, yet they did for their country, does that mean that right now, any veteran should be able to sue the US government?
billyfred42 3 years ago
Or that all of the draftees should have just refused to go because they felt that their right to privacy had been voilated?
billyfred42 3 years ago
If the Court said so, yes. If the Court distinguishes this situation from that of a pregnant woman, then no. Again, that's the COURT'S job. And they're not acting unconstitutionally if they decide in a manner you don't like.
J0hn3577 3 years ago
If I were on the Supreme Court, a draft would be unconstitutional. Next question.
J0hn3577 3 years ago
Well, you're not. That kind of sucks doesn't it? That is the same point you were arguing with Jeff about. Don't complain about it if it is a decision made by the Supreme Court, because you can't change it!
billyfred42 3 years ago
I didn't say you can't complain about it, I'm saying don't accuse them of acting against the law or the constitution or being "activist."
J0hn3577 3 years ago
no, they are being activists in that they are saying what is and is not allowed without a clear cut legal reason. if it important enough, we'll amend the Constitution to include it, or just pass a good ole fashioned law. The Court can not decide whether or not something is to be allowed because they can't be challenged. Congress can pass a law, as it was intended, and the Court can decide on the law, as it was intended. They can not circumvent Congress.
JeffPatterson93 3 years ago
Every decision by the Court is pages and pages of legal reasoning. So, to say there is no clear cut legal reason is wrong. Just because you disagree with the reasoning doesn't mean they are activists, it just means you would have come to a different conclusion if you were on the Court, which you're not. Again, the founders put a mechanism in place for dealing with this, the amendment process.
J0hn3577 3 years ago
You keep bringing up Amendments. so you are saying, in a five-four, the Court says, "The sky is orange" We then need to bring the country to a halt for months to get enough support for an Amendment saying "No, it's blue"? Amendments are not to overturn a Court decision. It is far easier to make a Court decision than to pass an amendment. and using my earlier example, the amendment would most likely fail and the sky would be forever orange.
JeffPatterson93 3 years ago
I'm not even going to entertain your ridiculous example, other than to say, yes, if the Court says that, then we amend the constitution to change it.
J0hn3577 3 years ago
But we wouldn't have the power. Most members of Congress don't give a damn about anything that doesn't affect reelection. You are saying the Court should be the most powerful branch of government. They serve for life without worrying about popularity, They are protected from consequence so they can decide whatever they want, and it is nearly impossible to impeach them. Now you say they should have the power to control the law as well?
JeffPatterson93 3 years ago
I'm saying that our system is what it is, and if you don't like it, take it up with the founders, not me. Again, if this is such a big issue, then it WILL effect reelection of Congressmen and Senators. Indeed, appointment of strict constructionist judges IS the primary issue for many voters. The system is working as it is supposed to.
J0hn3577 3 years ago
The why are judges selected based on political beliefs? Oh, and what is the name Terri Sciavo refering to?
JeffPatterson93 3 years ago
It's referring to the woman who was in a car accident and was in a permanent vegetative state. She told her husband she wouldn't want to live like that, so he sought to have her disconnected from the feeding tube. She even moved around and made sounds, but they were all involuntary movements because the thinking part of her brain was like slime.
J0hn3577 3 years ago
and how does that apply to this? She was dead, not "not yet alive" but dead. she would not recover and it was her will to end her life. Find a baby that is viable and yet will never develop into a human being. Find a baby that has a will that states they wish to die. That example is irrelevant because 1. she chose to be killed and 2. she had no chance of returning to normalcy, but a baby will.
JeffPatterson93 3 years ago
He asked me for an example of something that was not alive but had a beating heart. I gave him an example. I didn't say it was exactly the same thing. I'm done talking about the merits of abortion. I'm concerned with the system.
J0hn3577 3 years ago
Oh, and when do they get to elect the president? Afterall, the right to vote is not guaranteed anywhere in the Constitution. So me where it is guaranteed that the people get to select the president.
JeffPatterson93 3 years ago
Article 2 lays out the way in which the president is elected. It's the electoral college. You are technically right, a state gets to decide how it apportions its electors, but every state does it by popular vote. What's your point though?
J0hn3577 3 years ago
My point is the Supreme Court can decide voting is unconstitutional. Then they can give the ability to select the president to their buddies in that state. We would have to pass an Amendment, but that would take months, if not years. Allowing them to not have to follow clear law allows them too much power.
JeffPatterson93 3 years ago
There would be no basis for doing that. Just because it's not mandated doesn't mean it's prohibited. Point to me one provision in the constitution that they could even begin to say means popular voting for president is PROHIBITED and we'll continue this discussion. Other than that, if they tried to do it, people would take up their contitutionally protected arms and march on Washington.
J0hn3577 3 years ago
Exactly. They should march on Washington to do that, so why don't we do that everytime the Court declares something the majority of Americans oppose and Congress does nothing? It's because many people don't realize the impact Court decisions have until years later.
JeffPatterson93 3 years ago
Because they apparently don't think it's important enough.
J0hn3577 3 years ago
People are sheep. Nothing is important enough unless it threatens their life. That's why people allow facist governments to take over and only rebel when they are threatened. By the time you realize you must fight back for your beliefs, it's too late. allowing the Court to decide for Congress just helps the process.
JeffPatterson93 3 years ago
It's the way our system works. Let me ask you this. Are we better off now than we were in 1800? Was Brown v. Board of Education judicial activism? You mentioned the "spirit" of the constitution before. Isn't the spirit of the constitution freedom? Allowing Congress to do whatever it wants is contrary to the spirit of the Constitution. I would submit that SCOTUS decisions have made this country a LOT better. So, don't be so quick to talk doomsday scenarios.
J0hn3577 3 years ago
abortion is a privacy issue? Ok, so how does that affect the legality of abortion? I mean, how would a woman being protected from people finding out she got an abortion affect whether or not she can actually get one? Oh, and how is porn freedom of speech? What belief do you expouse by producing porn? What political or religious statement are you making, other than that you like money? Oh, and why is marriage a fundamental right? It seems more like a privelage to me.
JeffPatterson93 3 years ago
It's a privacy issue because the government is not allowed to tell a woman she can't expel something from her body that she doesn't want in there. The government cannot force a woman to endure the pains of pregnancy against her will. Porn is freedom of speech because the Supreme Court says that's what the first amendment means. If we don't like their decision, we can amend the constitution to overrule it. That's how it works. Doesn't make them "activist judges."
J0hn3577 3 years ago
Same goes for marriage. Court says it's a fundamental right under the constitution. Again, it can "seem to you" to be anything, but you're not vested with the authority to make the decision, the Court is. If you don't like it, amend the constitution.
J0hn3577 3 years ago
But is the Court interprets the Second Amendment to mean clubs only or maybe even bear (animal) arms, would that be correct? Judicial activism is the abuse of the privelage to interpret.
JeffPatterson93 3 years ago
So she can kill an baby to avoid suffering the pain of the consequences of something that was usually her choice? Oh, and if she doesn't want it there, I bet the baby doesn't want to die. Oh, and the First Amendment does not prevent the illegalization of porn by states, only by Congress. Go ahead and check it. Finally, it makes them activist judges because they are abusing their privelage to interpret the law to meet their political ends.
JeffPatterson93 3 years ago
A baby is not considered a person under current law. If you don't like it, try to change it. "Usually by choice"? The constitution isn't concerned with "usually," it has to be concerned with the extreme cases.
J0hn3577 3 years ago
Oh, so it's okay to kill a baby because they're not technically a person? The I could go out and jill all the babies I want and only get in trouble with the ASPCA? And also, why is it considered double homicide if a pregnant woman is killed?
billyfred42 3 years ago
The extreme cases? Really? So what about my right to murder someone who I dislike to an extreme degree? The Constitution is supposed to be concerned with the norm. They are called extremes for a reason.
Oh, and the baby not being considered a peron is from the Court too, right?
JeffPatterson93 3 years ago
You are quite smug about the First Amendment, aren't you? Yes, the original amendment only applied to the federal government. However, in Gitlow v. New York, the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th amendment, with its language "No state shall...," applies the free speech clause of the first amendment to the states. Many of the other amendments in the Bill of Rights have been incorporated in other cases through the 14th amendment.
J0hn3577 3 years ago
Judicial activism. (Said in sing song way) Ok, so when it says, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privelages or immunities of citizens of the United States" it really means rights guaranteed by the U.S. that the U.S. won't abridge?
If the Court ruled that gay marriage is Unconstitutional, wouldn't you accuse them of judicial activism? We're just calling them on it because as of right now, the only ones not benefitting from the activism are us. If tables turned...?
JeffPatterson93 3 years ago
I absolutely would NOT accuse them of judicial activism. I would disagree with their decision, but I wouldn't call them activist. If they said nothing in the constitution allows us to tell states they can't ban gay marriage, it would be a reasonable conclusion to reach, since, as you point out, there's nothing there specifically about gay marriage. Again, I've made my argument about why that would be wrong, but again, I can lobby to amend the constitution if I don't like it.
J0hn3577 3 years ago
Sorry to tell you, but no luck with your lobby. Takes a two thirds majority of the nation. And with that many not even voting...
billyfred42 3 years ago
What's your point? We're having a discussion about the mechanics of the system, not whether I can win. Of course a constitutional amendment allowing gay marriage would never pass at the current time or probably any time in the next century. Totally irrelevant to our discussion. Please, it's hard enough to have a discussion on here without stupid, irrelevant comments.
J0hn3577 3 years ago
But if the amendment won't pass, then that means the majority don't want it! It's a cry from the people saying "NO!" We are a democracy, so it is majority rule. So you are basically saying "We know the people don't want it, so we are using the Coursts to get it through anyway" It is very relevant to the discussion.
JeffPatterson93 3 years ago
That's what they said about the Hot Coffee McDonalds Lady...
billyfred42 3 years ago
I searched for androgynous Pat and got this...
AAnderson9048 3 years ago
"we are a melting pot thats all we are. we are no culture". quite untrue. culture is a way of life, and people residing within the american borders or possessing american citizenship have various different ways of life. the whites of anglo descent that have been here the longest have the most successful culture, which other emigrating euros started to resemble, although even now you detected "italian americans" or such. assimilation is probably impossible for non-whites given human tribality.
IslamicRageBoy 3 years ago
Your comment was extremely offensive to androgynous people. I'm serious. "America is not excellent; it's androgynous." What's wrong with being androgynous that precludes an androgynous person from being excellent? Again, very offensive. Not unexpected from someone like you though. Of course, everything that you personally stand for is what America stands for (and has always stood for). Very convenient.
J0hn3577 4 years ago
If one is androgynous for no reason of birth, this is something outside of one's control. Culture is a creature altogether different. If we are culturally androgynous, then it is due to apathy and deconstructionism.
I don't claim to stand for what every American stood of. I claim that America has a history that includes factors such as religion, traditions, language, and culture. Nothing more.
Someone like me? I wasn't aware that we knew one another.
paleocrat 4 years ago
What about people who choose to present themselves as androgynous? Are they per se "not excellent?" Again, whether you care or not, very offensive. As for my "someone like you" language, I simply meant an ethnocentric conservative Christian white male. I get this from the radio segments I've listened to on here, and although I don't know you personally, I've heard enough to know what kind of person you are generally. The fact that you don't know me is obviously irrelevant.
J0hn3577 4 years ago
Yes, people who intentionally present themselves as androgynous are "not excellent." Whether we are talking about intentionally acting/looking more effeminate or masculine. Not too worried about you taking offense.
Ethnocentric? I am married to an Asian! My kids are mixed! haha We are talking about the celebration of diverse cultures and traditions. They vary in language, religions, histories, political systems, etc. How the heck is this ethnocentrism?
paleocrat 4 years ago
Again, I'm not surprised you don't care if you offend people. You think you are great and anyone who acts differently from what you perceive as "normal" is "not excellent."
Well, your wife then, no doubt, has "melted" into American culture, right? Have you forced her to shed her culture and assimilate into yours? If so, that's ethnocentric. If not, you are not practicing what you have preached in this video.
J0hn3577 4 years ago
If someone has difficulty knowing whether or not they are a man or a woman, or they dress like the opposite sex, or they intentionally choose to dress and live in such a manner that people do not know whether they are a man or a woman, then that person is in need of psychiatric attention.
My wife's mother came from Korea. Willingly learned the language, got her GED, and raised two kids on her own after the dad abandoned them. I didn't force anything. I wouldn't marry a "project." Absurd.
paleocrat 4 years ago
Well, your wife's story doesn't seem to make your point that you are not ethnocentric because you married an Asian. You married an Asian who was raised here most of her life and who for all intents and purposes espouses your culture. The fact remains that you believe your culture is superior and that other cultures have no place here; people of those cultures must adopt your culture.
J0hn3577 4 years ago
Fair enough. I believe someone who believes in an invisible man in the sky who is everywhere all of the time and who knows everything and who watches our every move and judges us needs psychiatric attention. The only reason you don't seek it is because so many other people have the same condition that it seems normal.
J0hn3577 4 years ago
I bet you have lots of black and gay friends too.
J0hn3577 4 years ago
Sorry, I got carried away and that was uncalled for.
J0hn3577 4 years ago
Yes, that was uncalled for.
For information sake:
A. I only have two or three black friends. I have a lot of black acquaintances who I would stop and talk to were I to see them, but we aren't close on a personal level.
B. I have no gay friends. I know gay people. I am their acquaintance. I have spoken with them at great length. But I have none that I would consider to be my friend.
paleocrat 4 years ago
Again, I'm not surprised.
J0hn3577 4 years ago
You don't explicitly claim to stand for what every American "stood of," however, you claim that America is defined by its religion (Christian I presume, your religion), language (English, your language), traditions (like...slavery, male dominance? what traditions?), and culture (again very vague. Doesn't this just encompasses language, religion, and other things that could be mentioned specifically?) Point is, your vision of what America stands for just happens to make you a perfect fit.
J0hn3577 4 years ago
Yes, America was defined by it's religion, language, and traditions. These would be Christianity, English, various holidays, and a natural aristocracy.
You act like slavery was something unique to the US. That is historical illiteracy. Male dominance. What do you take as examples of male dominance? Voting? Why not talk about land-owner dominance? Most voters had to own land. This would be the rich and the agrarian.
paleocrat 4 years ago
You seem to miss my point. My point is we have some very idealistic founding documents. "All men are created equal" was never practiced in this country, although we like to think it is. But, we move further and further toward that goal. However, your values are directly counter to that. You believe Christian, English-speaking people are created better than others. However, you so graciously allow others to "improve" themselves by adopting your religion and language. How nice of you.
J0hn3577 4 years ago
That is retarded. I don't believe Christians were created better. I believe all were created equal, but people's decisions after their having been "created" make them better or worse. Simple ethical hierarchy.
Yes, I believe that people and nations are better when they adopt Christianity.
People who adopt English improve themselves? In certain countries, yes. In countries where the common language of the masses is not English, then no.
paleocrat 4 years ago
You like using language offensive to people with disabilities. In the process, you sound like a fifth grader.
I'm not going to debate with you over why Christianity (and all religion for that matter) is foolish, but again, your religion just happens to be the correct one.
Why can't Spanish become our national language? If we let it just continue to become more prominent, it could theoretically replace English as the dominant language. Would you object to that?
J0hn3577 4 years ago
Retarded? My brother in mentally retarded. The only people that have complained about the use of the term over the last 25 years of my life (since my brother was in his accident) have been educational elites and politicians.
If we get to the point where we are Meximerica, then this may happen. I'm an immigration restrictionist and pray this never happens. But, in the instance where they become the majority, we may be forced to do so.
paleocrat 4 years ago
You remind me of the Seinfeld episode where Jerry thinks the dentist is converting to Judaism so he can make fun of Jews. Every time you make an offensive comment you claim it's ok because you have someone in your family who belongs to the group you say offensive things about. It doesn't make it ok. The only reason he's not offended is because he doesn't have the capacity to be. I don't hear the dead complaining about being offended, yet why do we consider it offensive to speak ill of them?
J0hn3577 4 years ago
My parents, the parents of other children with mental retardation or other injuries, don't have a problem with it. It is amazing when people who haven't lived the life talk a big game. That's like a Frenchman telling us how we ought to speak of our own kin. Truly absurd.
I had this discussion with the professor of my class on Special Education. She was not happy that I used the term. I asked if she had any parent or family member complain about its use. It was the end of the discussion.
paleocrat 4 years ago
Your professor gave up too easily. It's one thing to refer to someone as "retarded" who actually is in conversation about that person's condition. It's quite another to use the word against someone to whom it obviously doesn't apply as an insult. When you accuse someone of having a condition as an insult, how can it not be insulting to the people who actually have the condition?
J0hn3577 4 years ago
I didn't call you mentally retarded.
On a side note, I spoke with a few people from our local group that works with people who have mental retardation and other handicaps and disabilities about your getting on my case. They asked if you were a teacher or a politician. Irony? No, just people who are familiar with the politically correct nonsense.
paleocrat 4 years ago
It's easy to call it nonsense when you're not the one fielding insults.
J0hn3577 4 years ago
I did not say slavery was unique to the US, so don't put words in my mouth and then accuse me of cultural illiteracy for something I never even brought up. My point was that we have a lot of "traditions" in this country that are not good. What makes us a different type of country? Most countries have an official religion and an official language. What makes us different is that we don't. The US is its people, no matter their religion or language or whatever. That's what makes us different.
J0hn3577 4 years ago
No need to talk tough here, honcho. The insinuation, as it appeared to me, was that slavery was a tradition unique to America.
btw- It wasn't a tradition.
We have always been different, but not always for the reasons you mentioned. Our colonies and early states weren't too much different from those countries whose characteristics you malign.
paleocrat 4 years ago
You know what they say about people who assume. The way people talk about tradition today is in terms of "it's the way things always were." Slavery was here from the beginning, and there was obviously much resistance to its abolition-- we fought a civil war over it. Do you want to bet that those who didn't want to see it go didn't argued regularly that it was "un-American" to abolish it? I'll take that wager.
J0hn3577 4 years ago
Once again, let me repeat myself: We aren't talking about dragging 2008 back to the 18th century. All we are talking about is defending those good and noble things that made America what it was.
I'll discuss slavery and the Civil War any day. You make a rather bizarre assumption that the vast majority of the south fought to retain slaves or that they treated slavery as an American tradition rather than an economic practice. It would be a rabbit trail, but oh well.
paleocrat 4 years ago
It was the only issue we saw the need to fight a civil war over, so it was apparently important to enough people in the south.
J0hn3577 4 years ago
Finally, to go back to your analogy. It's pretty clear that America was born androgynous. The Constitution does not establish a religion. In fact, it explicitly states that we will NOT establish a religion. It could have said "Although individual freedom to exercise religion shall not be abridged, the United States shall be a Christian nation." Doesn't say that, and this is very deliberate. Neither does the Constitution establish an official language.
J0hn3577 4 years ago
A. The Constitution did not create a culture. A culture created a nation that was to be guided by a social contract. And we were around for some time prior to the Constitution.
B. Read Justice Joseph Story on the first amendment to know what the founders and others in that period understood it to mean. He was appointed to the Supreme Court by Mr. Secularist, James Madison.
3. Why would the constitution need to establish a common language. That is absurd.
paleocrat 4 years ago
A. Ok, well the social contract the culture created says we don't have an established religion and we don't have an official language.
B. Justice Story, just like every other person, has his opinion. It's wrong. I can quote you lots of other equally "important" people who disagree with him. The language of the first amendment is clear. If its writers wished for it to say something else, they knew the English language and how to write the amendment to say that.
J0hn3577 4 years ago
We had a common language and a common religion. It wasn't until mass immigration and the advent of 20th century liberalism when this became an issue. Even going back as far as Theodore Roosevelt, we had a common language. He went so far as insisting that "hyphenated citizens" aren't even American.
Story was wrong. Where was the outcry? Founders were still alive. Madison appointed him. Yet no outcry? One of the most influential jurists giving an wrong opinion, and nothing but silence? Stange.
paleocrat 4 years ago
Reagan appointed O'Connor. I don't think he got what he bargained for either. As for Roosevelt, you seem not to get that just because someone held a high office does not make them the flawless heroes we like to think of them as. People back then held offensive opinions just like people today hold offensive opinions. 100 years from now when gays are marrying regularly and no one cares anymore, everyone will talk about how stupid and bigoted today's conservatives were.
J0hn3577 4 years ago
Define bigoted for me. The American Heritage would label you, as well as me, 2/3 a bigot. You folks use this kind of prattle when you have no argument left. You resort to name calling and non-empirical prophecies about what America will be like 100 years from now. That is all you have. How unfortunate.
paleocrat 4 years ago
Bigoted would be thinking your way is the objective best way for no other reason than it is your way. Continuing to hold outdated ideas about whole groups of people based on your observations of individuals. And please, who started the name-calling? And listen to you talking about non-empirical prophecies. You don't seem to have a problem with them as long as they come from the Bible. I'm basing mine from current trends and our country's history of extending rights to people.
J0hn3577 4 years ago
I don't think my way is the best way because it is my way. That is absurd.
Well, in the Bible, if you were found to be a false prophet speaking in the name of God, you were put to death. You are lucky. You not only speak on your own behalf, but project it far enough away to save yourself from humiliation in the possible instance that you are wrong. Convenient, really.
paleocrat 4 years ago
There are a lot of minor things the Bible would put me to death for. Which is why civilized people shouldn't be looking to that fairy tale book for their law and guidance on morality.
I'm not projecting it far enough into the future to save myself possible humiliation. I think we will have gay marriage in every state in this country and recognized by the federal government in my lifetime. I could be wrong, but again, I still believe it's inevitable.
J0hn3577 4 years ago
The Bible puts no one to death. The Old Testament does. The New Testament is against execution and in favor of forgiveness. I hate how so many atheists and anti-Christians attack the Bible based upon the Jewish part. The Bible is the New Testament with the Old Testament for background.
JeffPatterson93 3 years ago
The Old Testament is half of the Bible.
J0hn3577 3 years ago