a letter to those who voted for Bush

Page 9 of 10  


Wrong;it's to insure that Federal and State laws conform TO the Constitution;IOW,that they do not erode people's rights. It's the Executive Branch's duty to "protect/enforce" the Constitution. The Constitution can be ALTERED by the amendment process,and the USSC must follow the amendments.(part OF the Constitution) That's where the current problem lies;the USSC does not consider laws in regard to the Constitution,but uses other justifications.

Wrong,as the state laws prohibiting abortion would interfere with a persons right to privacy.

The States laws must conform to the Federal Constitution,too. (I don't buy the "incorporation" nonsense,that states can pick and choose what Amendments they abide by.)
Roe v Wade equalized the poorer people who reside where abortions were banned with the wealthy who can afford to travel to where abortions are available(or find physicians who would perform abortions under some other procedure);equal protection under the law.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jim Yanik wrote:

You seem to miss the point, Jim. The point is that if its not listed in the consitution, it should be voted upon by the people of the State; a concept which is part of the consitution. You can't "infer" constitutional law. If its not in the constitution, then its not a constitutional issue. Roe v Wade is wrong not because the supreme court ruled one way or another; it's wrong because they shouldn't have ruled at all, because "privacy" is not a real constitutional right. Conservatives don't want the court to rule that abortion is illegal; they just want it to not be a constitutional issue, because they believe that it shouldn't be.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote in

People vote to either add gov't powers or to restrict them,they do not vote to "add rights".Government exists to PROTECT people's rights.

I disagree.It's a BASIC right,and should not have to be listed in the Constitution to be acknowledged.

I do not see why medical procedures should be illegal in some states but not in others.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jim Yanik wrote:

....
....
It's a doctrine called "states rights"...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 16:42:30 +0000, Jim Yanik wrote:

Government exists to protect people's rights? Bwahahahah!

I too disagree. It can be argued just as well that the right to life exceeds all others. This right *is* enumerated in the Constitution.

I don't see why it's any business of the federal government what states do, within the constraints of the Constitution ("The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States repectively, or to the people").
--
Keith


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@abuse.gov. says...

How about the 13th amendment? That doesn't seem to be a limit on only the government.

The tenth says that all powers not specifically given by the Constitution to the federal government are reserved for the states, or the people.

--
Keith


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Peter wrote:

What the american people want is not law. 85% of american people may want to commit adultery or be able to drive when they are hammered out of their minds or have sex in public places. You're making the opposite case you're trying to make. Judges are supposed to rule on law, not on sentiment. Thats exactly the point.
What you don't "get" is that the "right" considers Roe v Wade judicial activism because the bench is infering something (privacy) that isn't explictly in our constitution. You can argue that they made up "privacy" to suit their agenda, which was to legalize abortion. I don't want to get in a debate about the right of mothers vs the rights of the unborn; you can argue either and not be wrong. But there is no explicit right to privacy. Not all opponents of R vs W want to make abortion illegal, and what most liberals don't get is that repealing Roe V Wade won't make abortion illegal; it just makes it a State rather than a constitutional issue. Conservatives just want the constitution to be interpreted to the letter rather than as just a guidline. Technically constitutional law requires that, and decisions like Roe V Wade are arguably outside that level of interpretation.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

You've got to be kidding. Pro-lifers completely discredit their position when they start citing the lack of rights enumerated in the Constitution.
Read the 9th Amendment. Then read Roe v. Wade, which correctly points out rights to privacy in family and other personal matters have been recognized for over 150 years in this country.
And then read the current platform of the Republican Party. No abortions, no exceptions, and they're trying to assign 14th Amendment equal protection rights to freakin fetuses.
I'm not claiming popular opinion should steer the decisions of our courts. What I'm saying is, our current executive and legislative branches are routinely passing laws which are being thrown out by our courts on constitutional grounds. Everything from the so-called "partial-birth abortion" ban to "Terri's Law" to two dozen others. Nothing is standing in the way of implementation of this radical agenda except our courts.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I'm glad you've got it down pat when several Supreme court justices don't see it that way. Thats whats wrong with people; they just think they have everything figured out.
De-facto law is not law. Just because they allowed posees to kill black men for 100 years doesn't make it legal or an implied right.What you've cited is exactly whats wrong with liberal judges. They don't interpret the law. They make new law based on sentiment, which is exacly what conservative are against.
Women's rights were not in the constitution (our forefathers knew what they were doing apparently), but some judge can't decide that it should have been. It has to be voted on in congress. If its not explicit in the constitution or an amendment, let the people's representative make it law. Not the unelected judges.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Terri's Law was clearly unconstitutional. A ban on abortion at the state level isn't.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The whole point of a constitution is to protect us from "the will of the majority".
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Nonsense.He only thinks it it's a "majority".Besides,the US is not a pure democracy,it's a democratic republic.There's a difference.

Meaning he doens't agree with it.

Meaning he isn't happy about the results of the last election.

To do an end-run around the Constitution.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote in

It sure kills the concept of written laws,enacted by the citizenry's representatives.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Peter wrote:

They don't have disdain for the working class. They have disdain for people who demand more money and costly benefits and then hide behind a union to do as little work as possible, never work a minute late and who refuse to use a merit system rather than a tenured one.
People want cheap clothes and affordable cars, and you can't have those things if you have to pay American wages and with American benefits and low American productivity. The poor lose either way.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Absolute bullshit. You've bought the propaganda.
The problem isn't American wages or American benefits or low(?!) American productivity. The problem is unprecedented greed. Look at corporate pay structures in the last 20 years you'll discover what's really happening. I watched first-hand while the directors of my own company laid off 20,000 U.S. workers, shipped their jobs overseas "in order to keep the company profitable", and then proceeded to take over $300 million in bonuses for themselves and their execs.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
You are a sad being indeed. Have you really convinced yourself that its "propaganda"? You simply don't understand the American system. Corporations don't exist for the purpose of providing people with jobs. The goal of a corporation are, and always have been, to provide value and growth for its stockholders. There's nothing different now than ever before. Manufacturing simply isn't profitable anymore. I guess the "problem" is that the so-called working class isn't smart enough or educated enough to understand it. Its not "greed". They're doing exactly what every corporate charter says to do, which is make as much money as possible. Thats America.
Save the company a billion dollars and you get a 300 million dollar bonus. I know its hard for a guy trying to buy gas for his car to understand, but thats the American system. They've returned 800 million dollars to the stockholders. They did a fantastic job, and they get a big bonus. Thats now non-union people make money. Thats how you get rich. Learn something instead of whining so much.
As I said before, we've known for 30 years that manufacturing was on its way out. If you bet your life on a manufacturing job, then you are a fool. Perhaps if you paid attention to what you consider "propaganda" you wouldn't be whining now about your plight?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 14 Sep 2005 10:00:37 -0700, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

Maintenance electrician in the plant that makes all GM's 245mm and 265mm torque converters and pistons for their new 6 cylinder motors. Able to troubleshoot and repair Allen-Bradley PLC and PLC-2 programmable controllers, Modicon 184, 484, 584 and 984 programmable controllers, Fanuc and Siemens CNC controllers and relay control systems. Responsible for diagnosing and repairing all electrical malfunctions on the 32 machines in my department and their associated material handling systems. Visually inspect all equipment in my area daily, note possible problems, and correct when possible or write up for the down shift when not possible to repair due to the machine being running. between jobs, build up sub-assemblies of parts with high failure rates for quicker replacement when needed. When time allowed, restock spare parts cabinets in my area from the main crib.
I made 70K in 2004, my final full year. My pension is 18K per year. Twenty five years of breathing mist from metal-working fluids. Fifteen years in the foundry, breathing coke dust. I earned every penny.

Good enough for the executives, good enough for the folks on the plant floor.

As opposed to the CEO's that couldn't care less about the long term future of the company or the country? Multi-million dollar salaries, hugh stock options, giant bonuses, annual all-expense-paid trips to the Mayo Clinic for physicals (GM does this for the top guys, BTW), while claiming the company's problems are due to the hourly low-lifes having health insurance?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Retired Shop Rat: 14,647 days in a GM plant. Now I can do what I enjoy: Large Format Photography
Web Site: www.destarr.com - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

Were you in George's class at Yale? COL increases because other stuff, besides labor costs, increase. Materials. Machines. Transportation. Land. Taxes. And don't forget marketing.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
You can't take a poll on income. How do you measure effort? What is the context? Have you done anything to elevate yourself? Do you expect to have the same, brain-dead job for 40 years and keep making more and more money without ever gaining any new skills? Have your skills become antiquated? Are you more valuable to your employer now? If not, why do you expect more money?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

<snipped the one-sided dialogue>
Do you just talk to yourself so nobody sees the drool on your chin?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.