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.
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.
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").
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.
You've got to be kidding. Pro-lifers completely discredit their
position when they start citing the lack of rights enumerated in
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
On 14 Sep 2005 10:00:37 -0700, firstname.lastname@example.org 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
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
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?
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.