I wouldn't if the people complaining about activist judges thinks that the Supreme Court in Loving v Virginia should've just "deferred" to the people? Most people didn't want interracial marriage to be legal back then.
I will not agree or disagree on some of your comments But...Abortion hurts nobody? What about the fetus? Is condoning murder of unborn children NOT a civil right? And who's right is it to determine when that fetus deserves to live? I don't even go to church but I know the answer to that. And you like t he long term results? So its ok with you that Gas is almost $4.00 a gallon? And that gives americans less to spend? Thus crippling our nation economically? Be Honest. You Love Obama. Thats all:)
I was actually going to rerecord the video because I was afraid someone would take the comment as you did instead of focusing on the issues independently.
I am Jewish and Jewish law provides the answer to your question differently. And that is the problem with the abortion debate. It is often based on religious beliefs on when life begins.
However, I don't see how Americans would have less to spend under Obama. An independent review showed Obama's tax plan putting more money in our pockets.
How Exactly do you think he'll deal with those terrorists that attacked us. The last Democrat that tried to deal with terrorist did nothing and it lead to 9/11. Now you want a more liberal candidate to deal with it. And as far as Jewish law, hiding behind that ass you reason for saying what you did does nothing to answer my question. I respect your opnion as an american but i dont agree.
Have you read the 9/11 Commission report? The Clinton administration took its time to research who committed the attacks on the USS Cole and only in December 2000 did they confirm it was Osama bin Ladin. Deciding to not hand a war to the Bush Administration, the Clinton administration handed over the documents so Bush could act.
Bush failed to act.
Obama will send troops to deal with the areas where Al Queda has regained strength (back to pre-9/11 strength. He will focus on them, unlike Bush
Did you read the AP report today? Al Queda is imploding due to the pressure of arab nations no longer supporting it. That in part because of the United states constant presure on them. Pre 9/11 stength? They are but a morsal of what they were. Now the Taliban in Afghanastan, they are stronger. But that is why we are diverting our troops from Iraq to there. You seem like a intelligent person. I thought you might like that for your next anti Mccain speech. Associated Press 9/17..Read up
Oh and btw i want to apologize for one thing. Below I made a typo. I said ass when i mean to say As. Im not someone who would slander or slur another. Im just a american like you who wants to get his beliefs out. Sometimes the one who reaches across the aisle does more than those who only vote one way.
And I don't "love" any politician. I feel that Obama has the right plan to help fix our economy, to fix our broken healthcare system, and to deal with the terrorists who actually attacked us.
You seem very smart, and you see things very clearly. How come so many people cant see the truth? What did they get out of his speach? He didnt say anything helpful.
Well said at the beginning regarding the speech interruptions. Simply disgraceful behavior and not doing the Democratic cause any favors at all - can't these people snap out of their angry stupor and see that? Just imagine a Republican coming to the Democratic convention and doing the reverse to Obama. That is how stupid you look!
The Republicans do have their idiots as well. All those people sending out false emails about Obama's record for example. A simple check of snopes shows most of the emails sent out about him false.
And if you look at snopes, there are many more false Obama emails than their are McCain ones.
I have also had to delete a couple posts from my videos because instead of commenting on the substance, they just insult the person.
So the idiots are on both sides, and they just need to grow up.
Absolutely, I am not for a minute suggesting the idiocy is limited to these people, or one side of politics. This election I hope Obama can win, which is why I am particularly disappointed in these people and picked up on your excellent point. They're biggest achievement is enforcing the image of the "loony left" and turning away the all important undecided voters, much as the extreme right wing nuts have the opposite effect. I guess it all balances out...
What I don't understand about a lot of republicans is that they believe in small government, individual responsibility, freedom to do as one please, etc etc, but when it comes to abortion they believe that the government has every right to come into a woman's womb and tell her what she can and can't do with her body. It's completely contradictory to their platform and it undermines the whole principle of seperation of church and state.
A woman's right to do what she may with her body extends so far as it does not violate the rights of another. Republicans believe that a child has human rights from the moment of conception, and therefore a woman may not exercise her rights to an extent that results in the murder of that child. Any one who has ever purchased a pack of condoms knows when life begins. There is nothing religious about it.
Not to mention the fact that her so-called "right" was invented by the Supreme Court.
The right to privacy, which is the fundamental Constitutional principle upon which Roe v. Wade rests, was first developed years earlier in Griswold v. Conn. In that decision the Court improperly ruled that even though a right to privacy was not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution or in any prior Supreme Court decision, it nonetheless existed from the mere "penumbras" of the Bill of Rights. Thus, the Constitutional right on whihc abortion lies was basically pulled out of thin air by 4 men.
AH, but the 9th amendment (the amendment often forgotten by people against the constitutionally protected right to privacy) clearly states that you cannot assert that something is not a right just because it is not enumerated in the Constitution.
But the NInth Amendment applies ONLY to restrain the FEDERAL government. It has never been incorporated into the 14th Amendment by the Supreme Court and therefore cannot possibly restrict the actions of state governments. Therefore, to rely on the 9th Amendment as the crux of the right to privacy is invalid at the state level. While states may grant such a right to privacy in their own constitutions, they are not required to do so under the 9th Amendment.
By the logic of your argument, the states don't have to allow us to have free speech, a fair trial, and can restrict gun ownership all they want. We know all that is not true, so then the states would not be able to trample on any right that would be protected in the 9th amendment.
What the 9th amendment does is it gives the Federal Government jurisdiction to step in and protect people when states are trampling those rights that are not enumerated but still exist.
Up until 1920, the suppression of speech or any other right in the first eight amendments by state governments was permissible under the Constitutin. It was not until the court began its process of gradually incorporating the Bill of Rights into the 14th Amendment that such rights became appplicable to the states. However, the 9th Amendment has never been incorporated as others (1st, 4th) have been. Thus, it is not applicable to states, as the others are.
The combined Griswold v CT. opinions link the 9th to the 14th.
And SCOTUS has gotten many interpretations "wrong" (like Plessy).
Besides, it makes no sense to affirm a right in the Constitution and allow states to trample that right. The constitution is the source of federal power and if the Constitution asserts that a right exists and is thus protected, the federal government would be well within its authority to protect it.
Concurrences are not the law. They have no binding precedent on future Court decisions. If we were to allow concurrences to act as binding law, we would have single justices shaping our law.
And as for the fact that their interpretation may be "wrong", you can't interpret something that is not there.
And while it might make no sense to have states held to a lower constitutional standard, that is NOT a decision for the Court to make.
Actually it is the job of the Supreme Court to interpret the meaning of the Constitution. And if a court interprets the meaning of the constitution that rights cannot be trampled by any government (federal, state, or municipality) then that would be the interpretation of the law.
And if the argument made in a dissent can be used as justification for a ruling, I see no reasons why concurrences would not be used either. (The Brown ruling borrowed similar arguments from the PLessy dissent.
If you take it as the founders envisioned the role of the Court, then to interpret would mean to apply the provisions of the Constitution as they were writen and understood. What the Court did in Griswold and Roe was to substitute what they felt the Constitution SHOULD mean, for what the drafters intended. That is hardly interpretive. While you may agree with the Court's value judgment, their role is purely functionary. The meaning of the constitution is changed by the people through amendments
Actually I do, because if not, there would have been no need for the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court always upheld state restrictions speech and religion well into the 1900's, until those rights were incorporated into the 14th.
I argue that the 14th was needed, not because the founders intended the states to be able to trample rights, but because the courts incorrectly determined that the states could do those things.
You assert that more recent rulings are not the proper interpretation of founder intent, yet you assume that earlier rulings are?
There should be no need for the 13th amendment, clearly the 9th should cover such a simple concept. But sometimes pen and sword are needed in union to protect rights.
You seem to miss the fundamental point. The Constitution, at the time it was written and until the 14th Amendment, was expressly a restraint on the federal government. There is no debate about that. It is a fact. It's not a matter of the founders "intending" anything. The first amendment says "CONGRESS shall make no law"...I don't know how much clearer their intent in the Bill of Rights could be.
Perhaps you have a point on the 1st amendment. But not the the rest of the bill of rights.
Yes, the 10th amendment applies the general principle that powers not given to the federal government are reserved to the states or the people.
So you are arguing that without the 14th amendment, state governments would be free to infringe gun ownership rights and to not provide for a trial by jury?
My point is this. If the Constitution that affirms right would also allow for the protection of them
Final Point(s): States were indeed allowed such transgressions well into the mid-20th century.
My ultimate fear, in the end, is that if we allow 9 men and women to interpret freely or determine the extent of our rights without any limitations, what is stopping some future collection of nine from reversing it all. I will never trade short-term convenience (i.e avoiding amendment process through broad interpretation) for the long-term preservation of the liberty of future generations.
And as for the Court applying the rights protected by the Constitution to unforseen circumstances, that is fine, as long as those rights -- when not mentioned explicitly -- are those that have been traditionally protected in America. The "right to choose" is no such historically protected right. State laws had restricted abortions since the 1800's. Perhaps the law should have been changed to reflect modern views. Yet that is PRECISELY what the amendment process is for.
Why must the rights be traditional? Slavery was a "right" traditionally protected in America. Would you argue that had the courts ruled that slavery violated the 9th amendment that the courts would have done so unjustly?
The founders did not intend that rights needed to be added to the constitution by amendment. Clearly if you read the documents surrounding the founding fathers you will see that those who argued for the 9th amendment knew that requiring such would be foolish.
The 9th Amendment was inserted to protect any rights understood to be rights of the people in 1781. The amendment process was included to add any additional rights not originally understood or protected. Otherwise, there would be no need for amendments.
That is my point with the "right" to privacy. It was not traditionally protected under the 9th and therefore must be added via amendment. The same was true of slavery, and -- i would argue -- desegregation.
There is no doubt that slavery, segregation, unequal voting rights, were all terrible. Yet it is not up to 9 unelected judges to change such things. If we are truly to live in a democracy -- "a nation of laws and not of men" -- then changes to our Constitution must come from the people. The whole point of a national charter is to protect the traditional values -- for good or ill -- of a nation from the whims of future majorities. If that whim for change is strong enough, amend.
But we are not living in a Democracy. The constitution defines our government as a "Republican" form of government. Our government contains a system of checks and balances, including a coequal branch of government that is the judiciary, that protects the individual from the tyranny of the majority.
The Founders wanted to enshrine general principles and general protections into our Constitution. If they wanted to make sure it would always be implemented according to their understanding of those principles they would've been more specific but they weren't. They left open the possibility that their understanding of some of these principles could be wrong.
That is what the amendment process is for. If future generations believe that the founders were wrong, the people can change the Constitution's meaning via amendment. To leave such fundamental change in the document's meaning up to 5 individuals is frightening and unnecessary. If the founders wanted us make sure of anything, it was that this nation belonged to the people. All of the people. Not five.
I am sorry but you are incorrect. The amendment process is purposefully hard for a reason. And that reason is not so that it is harder to recognize rights. It is purposefully hard to make sure that government cannot grant itself more power than what they intended it to have.
When it comes to protecting individual rights, government has to make its case as to why it has a rational basis to do so. Otherwise, the courts must have the authority to step in and say "no".
If the amendment process were not needed to recognize rights then there would have been no reason for the Bill of Rights, which are -- after all -- amendments.
The existence of the 9th amendment in the bill of rights clearly contradicts that line of reasoning.
The Constitution protects all rights, regardless of their status of being enumerated or not.
Conservatives argue that if this is so then Judges could manufacture rights, but I disagree. The idea of the Constitution is that government has to prove it has the authority to act when its acts are challenged.
So basically, people should have the right to do as they please UNLESS the government makes a law that prohibits those actions. That law must stand the scrutiny of the Constitution in order to be valid. The burden of proof should be on the government when it asserts a power, not on the people.
Furthermore, the amendment process is needed when the judiciary gets it wrong (you know, like with Dredd Scott) and does not correct itself (like it did with Plessy and Brown V Board of Education).
Read the 14th amendment. Equal protection of the laws.
Back then I'm sure most of the people who wrote the 14th amendment would not agree that that applied to homosexuals, but back then most people thought there were actually logical reasons to treat homosexuals differently. Those reasons have been debunked so since there's no rational state interest in different treatment treating them differently violates the equal protection clause.
Original intent is merely a means of interpreting ambiguous phrases of the Constitution. To my understanding, there is nothing ambiguous about "all persons born or naturalized in the US" receiving equal protection of the laws. Whether they are homosexual or not has no bearing on their citizenship status, and thus the intent of the amendment's authors need not be consulted.
There is something to be said for the idea, except I think it cuts against the grain of our nation's ideals to have the government step in and mandate how much someone's work is worth. To have a central authority dictating to corporations, small businesses, and other employers how to spend their money is a terrifying proposition, even if it is housed in good intentions.
It's a disturbing abdication of individual liberty that buttresses much of Obama's beliefs.
Well, equal pay for equal work doesn't mean "you must pay X for job Y". Equal pay for equal work says "if you pay person M, salary S for job J then all other things being equal, person F should also be paid salary S for job J." (where M and F are the genders of the people as well).
That's precisely the problem. "All things being equal". The government is in no position to judge whether all things are, in fact, equal, or what characteristics factor into that determination. This is especially the case when some federal bureaucracy would have to make such determinations across jobs -- i.e. predominately male/female occupations. Determinants of pay disparity are much too numerous to leave up to the inherent ineptitude and inefficiency of a central authority.
I love how he claims to be "small gov't and low taxes" right before he proposes to set up a training program to retrain people who lost their jobs to the "global economy" AND pay the difference between their old salary and the new lower paying salary of the temp job they would take while being trained. such a program would cost more than social security & would be the biggest bureaucracy since welfare. I'm sick of people slandering "liberals" i.e. ppl who spend money on social welfare programs.
absolutely... his speech was filled with platitudes that I have heard wayyyy to many times before. And he calls himself a "maverick?" Ha! His whole campaign is based on how Obama lacks substance, but his speech had zero substance. He is now relying on the enthusiasm sparked by Palin because he can't contribute anything to it. DOn't even get me started on Palin. Ugh.
I wouldn't if the people complaining about activist judges thinks that the Supreme Court in Loving v Virginia should've just "deferred" to the people? Most people didn't want interracial marriage to be legal back then.
sicktoaster 3 years ago
I will not agree or disagree on some of your comments But...Abortion hurts nobody? What about the fetus? Is condoning murder of unborn children NOT a civil right? And who's right is it to determine when that fetus deserves to live? I don't even go to church but I know the answer to that. And you like t he long term results? So its ok with you that Gas is almost $4.00 a gallon? And that gives americans less to spend? Thus crippling our nation economically? Be Honest. You Love Obama. Thats all:)
Whiz4one 3 years ago
I was actually going to rerecord the video because I was afraid someone would take the comment as you did instead of focusing on the issues independently.
I am Jewish and Jewish law provides the answer to your question differently. And that is the problem with the abortion debate. It is often based on religious beliefs on when life begins.
However, I don't see how Americans would have less to spend under Obama. An independent review showed Obama's tax plan putting more money in our pockets.
lj4adotcomdan 3 years ago
How Exactly do you think he'll deal with those terrorists that attacked us. The last Democrat that tried to deal with terrorist did nothing and it lead to 9/11. Now you want a more liberal candidate to deal with it. And as far as Jewish law, hiding behind that ass you reason for saying what you did does nothing to answer my question. I respect your opnion as an american but i dont agree.
Whiz4one 3 years ago
Have you read the 9/11 Commission report? The Clinton administration took its time to research who committed the attacks on the USS Cole and only in December 2000 did they confirm it was Osama bin Ladin. Deciding to not hand a war to the Bush Administration, the Clinton administration handed over the documents so Bush could act.
Bush failed to act.
Obama will send troops to deal with the areas where Al Queda has regained strength (back to pre-9/11 strength. He will focus on them, unlike Bush
lj4adotcomdan 3 years ago
Did you read the AP report today? Al Queda is imploding due to the pressure of arab nations no longer supporting it. That in part because of the United states constant presure on them. Pre 9/11 stength? They are but a morsal of what they were. Now the Taliban in Afghanastan, they are stronger. But that is why we are diverting our troops from Iraq to there. You seem like a intelligent person. I thought you might like that for your next anti Mccain speech. Associated Press 9/17..Read up
Whiz4one 3 years ago
And I am not hiding behind that as my reasoning. I am simply countering your point about us entering church to find the answer.
lj4adotcomdan 3 years ago
Oh and btw i want to apologize for one thing. Below I made a typo. I said ass when i mean to say As. Im not someone who would slander or slur another. Im just a american like you who wants to get his beliefs out. Sometimes the one who reaches across the aisle does more than those who only vote one way.
Whiz4one 3 years ago
I figured it was "as".
lj4adotcomdan 3 years ago
And I don't "love" any politician. I feel that Obama has the right plan to help fix our economy, to fix our broken healthcare system, and to deal with the terrorists who actually attacked us.
lj4adotcomdan 3 years ago
they should just take mccain to disney land and give him an ice cream
MeloMaloPaulino 3 years ago
You seem very smart, and you see things very clearly. How come so many people cant see the truth? What did they get out of his speach? He didnt say anything helpful.
fonda222 3 years ago
Well said at the beginning regarding the speech interruptions. Simply disgraceful behavior and not doing the Democratic cause any favors at all - can't these people snap out of their angry stupor and see that? Just imagine a Republican coming to the Democratic convention and doing the reverse to Obama. That is how stupid you look!
booboomonger 3 years ago
The Republicans do have their idiots as well. All those people sending out false emails about Obama's record for example. A simple check of snopes shows most of the emails sent out about him false.
And if you look at snopes, there are many more false Obama emails than their are McCain ones.
I have also had to delete a couple posts from my videos because instead of commenting on the substance, they just insult the person.
So the idiots are on both sides, and they just need to grow up.
lj4adotcomdan 3 years ago
Absolutely, I am not for a minute suggesting the idiocy is limited to these people, or one side of politics. This election I hope Obama can win, which is why I am particularly disappointed in these people and picked up on your excellent point. They're biggest achievement is enforcing the image of the "loony left" and turning away the all important undecided voters, much as the extreme right wing nuts have the opposite effect. I guess it all balances out...
booboomonger 3 years ago
What I don't understand about a lot of republicans is that they believe in small government, individual responsibility, freedom to do as one please, etc etc, but when it comes to abortion they believe that the government has every right to come into a woman's womb and tell her what she can and can't do with her body. It's completely contradictory to their platform and it undermines the whole principle of seperation of church and state.
Skimammothheavenly 3 years ago
A woman's right to do what she may with her body extends so far as it does not violate the rights of another. Republicans believe that a child has human rights from the moment of conception, and therefore a woman may not exercise her rights to an extent that results in the murder of that child. Any one who has ever purchased a pack of condoms knows when life begins. There is nothing religious about it.
Not to mention the fact that her so-called "right" was invented by the Supreme Court.
Baker227 3 years ago
How was the right invented?
lj4adotcomdan 3 years ago
The right to privacy, which is the fundamental Constitutional principle upon which Roe v. Wade rests, was first developed years earlier in Griswold v. Conn. In that decision the Court improperly ruled that even though a right to privacy was not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution or in any prior Supreme Court decision, it nonetheless existed from the mere "penumbras" of the Bill of Rights. Thus, the Constitutional right on whihc abortion lies was basically pulled out of thin air by 4 men.
Baker227 3 years ago
AH, but the 9th amendment (the amendment often forgotten by people against the constitutionally protected right to privacy) clearly states that you cannot assert that something is not a right just because it is not enumerated in the Constitution.
lj4adotcomdan 3 years ago
But the NInth Amendment applies ONLY to restrain the FEDERAL government. It has never been incorporated into the 14th Amendment by the Supreme Court and therefore cannot possibly restrict the actions of state governments. Therefore, to rely on the 9th Amendment as the crux of the right to privacy is invalid at the state level. While states may grant such a right to privacy in their own constitutions, they are not required to do so under the 9th Amendment.
Baker227 3 years ago
By the logic of your argument, the states don't have to allow us to have free speech, a fair trial, and can restrict gun ownership all they want. We know all that is not true, so then the states would not be able to trample on any right that would be protected in the 9th amendment.
What the 9th amendment does is it gives the Federal Government jurisdiction to step in and protect people when states are trampling those rights that are not enumerated but still exist.
lj4adotcomdan 3 years ago
Up until 1920, the suppression of speech or any other right in the first eight amendments by state governments was permissible under the Constitutin. It was not until the court began its process of gradually incorporating the Bill of Rights into the 14th Amendment that such rights became appplicable to the states. However, the 9th Amendment has never been incorporated as others (1st, 4th) have been. Thus, it is not applicable to states, as the others are.
Baker227 3 years ago
The combined Griswold v CT. opinions link the 9th to the 14th.
And SCOTUS has gotten many interpretations "wrong" (like Plessy).
Besides, it makes no sense to affirm a right in the Constitution and allow states to trample that right. The constitution is the source of federal power and if the Constitution asserts that a right exists and is thus protected, the federal government would be well within its authority to protect it.
lj4adotcomdan 3 years ago
Concurrences are not the law. They have no binding precedent on future Court decisions. If we were to allow concurrences to act as binding law, we would have single justices shaping our law.
And as for the fact that their interpretation may be "wrong", you can't interpret something that is not there.
And while it might make no sense to have states held to a lower constitutional standard, that is NOT a decision for the Court to make.
Baker227 3 years ago
Actually it is the job of the Supreme Court to interpret the meaning of the Constitution. And if a court interprets the meaning of the constitution that rights cannot be trampled by any government (federal, state, or municipality) then that would be the interpretation of the law.
And if the argument made in a dissent can be used as justification for a ruling, I see no reasons why concurrences would not be used either. (The Brown ruling borrowed similar arguments from the PLessy dissent.
lj4adotcomdan 3 years ago
If you take it as the founders envisioned the role of the Court, then to interpret would mean to apply the provisions of the Constitution as they were writen and understood. What the Court did in Griswold and Roe was to substitute what they felt the Constitution SHOULD mean, for what the drafters intended. That is hardly interpretive. While you may agree with the Court's value judgment, their role is purely functionary. The meaning of the constitution is changed by the people through amendments
Baker227 3 years ago
Do you really think the founders intended the states to be able to trample on our constitutionally protected rights?
And in Griswold and Roe, the court had to apply the Constitution to circumstances that the founders probably did not think of.
lj4adotcomdan 3 years ago
Actually I do, because if not, there would have been no need for the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court always upheld state restrictions speech and religion well into the 1900's, until those rights were incorporated into the 14th.
Baker227 3 years ago
I argue that the 14th was needed, not because the founders intended the states to be able to trample rights, but because the courts incorrectly determined that the states could do those things.
You assert that more recent rulings are not the proper interpretation of founder intent, yet you assume that earlier rulings are?
There should be no need for the 13th amendment, clearly the 9th should cover such a simple concept. But sometimes pen and sword are needed in union to protect rights.
lj4adotcomdan 3 years ago
You seem to miss the fundamental point. The Constitution, at the time it was written and until the 14th Amendment, was expressly a restraint on the federal government. There is no debate about that. It is a fact. It's not a matter of the founders "intending" anything. The first amendment says "CONGRESS shall make no law"...I don't know how much clearer their intent in the Bill of Rights could be.
Baker227 3 years ago
Perhaps you have a point on the 1st amendment. But not the the rest of the bill of rights.
Yes, the 10th amendment applies the general principle that powers not given to the federal government are reserved to the states or the people.
So you are arguing that without the 14th amendment, state governments would be free to infringe gun ownership rights and to not provide for a trial by jury?
My point is this. If the Constitution that affirms right would also allow for the protection of them
lj4adotcomdan 3 years ago
Final Point(s): States were indeed allowed such transgressions well into the mid-20th century.
My ultimate fear, in the end, is that if we allow 9 men and women to interpret freely or determine the extent of our rights without any limitations, what is stopping some future collection of nine from reversing it all. I will never trade short-term convenience (i.e avoiding amendment process through broad interpretation) for the long-term preservation of the liberty of future generations.
Baker227 3 years ago
And as for the Court applying the rights protected by the Constitution to unforseen circumstances, that is fine, as long as those rights -- when not mentioned explicitly -- are those that have been traditionally protected in America. The "right to choose" is no such historically protected right. State laws had restricted abortions since the 1800's. Perhaps the law should have been changed to reflect modern views. Yet that is PRECISELY what the amendment process is for.
Baker227 3 years ago
Why must the rights be traditional? Slavery was a "right" traditionally protected in America. Would you argue that had the courts ruled that slavery violated the 9th amendment that the courts would have done so unjustly?
The founders did not intend that rights needed to be added to the constitution by amendment. Clearly if you read the documents surrounding the founding fathers you will see that those who argued for the 9th amendment knew that requiring such would be foolish.
lj4adotcomdan 3 years ago
The 9th Amendment was inserted to protect any rights understood to be rights of the people in 1781. The amendment process was included to add any additional rights not originally understood or protected. Otherwise, there would be no need for amendments.
That is my point with the "right" to privacy. It was not traditionally protected under the 9th and therefore must be added via amendment. The same was true of slavery, and -- i would argue -- desegregation.
Baker227 3 years ago
There is no doubt that slavery, segregation, unequal voting rights, were all terrible. Yet it is not up to 9 unelected judges to change such things. If we are truly to live in a democracy -- "a nation of laws and not of men" -- then changes to our Constitution must come from the people. The whole point of a national charter is to protect the traditional values -- for good or ill -- of a nation from the whims of future majorities. If that whim for change is strong enough, amend.
Baker227 3 years ago
But we are not living in a Democracy. The constitution defines our government as a "Republican" form of government. Our government contains a system of checks and balances, including a coequal branch of government that is the judiciary, that protects the individual from the tyranny of the majority.
lj4adotcomdan 3 years ago
The Founders wanted to enshrine general principles and general protections into our Constitution. If they wanted to make sure it would always be implemented according to their understanding of those principles they would've been more specific but they weren't. They left open the possibility that their understanding of some of these principles could be wrong.
sicktoaster 3 years ago
That is what the amendment process is for. If future generations believe that the founders were wrong, the people can change the Constitution's meaning via amendment. To leave such fundamental change in the document's meaning up to 5 individuals is frightening and unnecessary. If the founders wanted us make sure of anything, it was that this nation belonged to the people. All of the people. Not five.
Baker227 3 years ago
I am sorry but you are incorrect. The amendment process is purposefully hard for a reason. And that reason is not so that it is harder to recognize rights. It is purposefully hard to make sure that government cannot grant itself more power than what they intended it to have.
When it comes to protecting individual rights, government has to make its case as to why it has a rational basis to do so. Otherwise, the courts must have the authority to step in and say "no".
lj4adotcomdan 3 years ago
If the amendment process were not needed to recognize rights then there would have been no reason for the Bill of Rights, which are -- after all -- amendments.
Baker227 3 years ago
The existence of the 9th amendment in the bill of rights clearly contradicts that line of reasoning.
The Constitution protects all rights, regardless of their status of being enumerated or not.
Conservatives argue that if this is so then Judges could manufacture rights, but I disagree. The idea of the Constitution is that government has to prove it has the authority to act when its acts are challenged.
(to be continued)
lj4adotcomdan 3 years ago
So basically, people should have the right to do as they please UNLESS the government makes a law that prohibits those actions. That law must stand the scrutiny of the Constitution in order to be valid. The burden of proof should be on the government when it asserts a power, not on the people.
Furthermore, the amendment process is needed when the judiciary gets it wrong (you know, like with Dredd Scott) and does not correct itself (like it did with Plessy and Brown V Board of Education).
lj4adotcomdan 3 years ago
Read the 14th amendment. Equal protection of the laws.
Back then I'm sure most of the people who wrote the 14th amendment would not agree that that applied to homosexuals, but back then most people thought there were actually logical reasons to treat homosexuals differently. Those reasons have been debunked so since there's no rational state interest in different treatment treating them differently violates the equal protection clause.
sicktoaster 3 years ago
Original intent is merely a means of interpreting ambiguous phrases of the Constitution. To my understanding, there is nothing ambiguous about "all persons born or naturalized in the US" receiving equal protection of the laws. Whether they are homosexual or not has no bearing on their citizenship status, and thus the intent of the amendment's authors need not be consulted.
Baker227 3 years ago
Oh, and one more thing. Constitutions do not grant rights, they protect rights that we already have.
lj4adotcomdan 3 years ago
"equal pay for equal work"?
There is something to be said for the idea, except I think it cuts against the grain of our nation's ideals to have the government step in and mandate how much someone's work is worth. To have a central authority dictating to corporations, small businesses, and other employers how to spend their money is a terrifying proposition, even if it is housed in good intentions.
It's a disturbing abdication of individual liberty that buttresses much of Obama's beliefs.
Baker227 3 years ago
Well, equal pay for equal work doesn't mean "you must pay X for job Y". Equal pay for equal work says "if you pay person M, salary S for job J then all other things being equal, person F should also be paid salary S for job J." (where M and F are the genders of the people as well).
lj4adotcomdan 3 years ago
That's precisely the problem. "All things being equal". The government is in no position to judge whether all things are, in fact, equal, or what characteristics factor into that determination. This is especially the case when some federal bureaucracy would have to make such determinations across jobs -- i.e. predominately male/female occupations. Determinants of pay disparity are much too numerous to leave up to the inherent ineptitude and inefficiency of a central authority.
Baker227 3 years ago
Your reply made no sense at all
fonda222 3 years ago
I love how he claims to be "small gov't and low taxes" right before he proposes to set up a training program to retrain people who lost their jobs to the "global economy" AND pay the difference between their old salary and the new lower paying salary of the temp job they would take while being trained. such a program would cost more than social security & would be the biggest bureaucracy since welfare. I'm sick of people slandering "liberals" i.e. ppl who spend money on social welfare programs.
LoneRanter 3 years ago 2
yeah, this speech made me feel ill
Skimammothheavenly 3 years ago 2
me too.. i found it very hard to keep from rolling my eyes every two mins..
His smile alone is so so very unsincere...i tried to watch with an open mind really i did.. but it just didnt seem real at all to me.
BellaBKNY 3 years ago
absolutely... his speech was filled with platitudes that I have heard wayyyy to many times before. And he calls himself a "maverick?" Ha! His whole campaign is based on how Obama lacks substance, but his speech had zero substance. He is now relying on the enthusiasm sparked by Palin because he can't contribute anything to it. DOn't even get me started on Palin. Ugh.
Skimammothheavenly 3 years ago
true!!!
aand23 3 years ago
i agree with you on the outbursts .. but you have to admit it was golden... ... great video
BellaBKNY 3 years ago
I think the point can be made without being disruptive.
But thanks for the complement! I look forward to putting up more.
lj4adotcomdan 3 years ago