OT: Two parties

[Han]

"J. Clarke" wrote in news: [e-mail]:

If the Constitution is so clear and immutable (excepting for a moment the amendment route), why do we need a USSC?

[keithw86]

To interpret laws. You and congress are quite alike. They want the Constitution to mean what *they* want it to mean. SCotUS is

*supposed* to be a check on such nonsense.

[CW]

Question: Are your really an idiot or do you just play one on the internet?

[J. Clarke]

To slap down the politicians when they have overstepped their bounds of course.

[Dave In Texas]

Or the Three Commandments . . .

in Houston

[dhall987]

...and for those that agree with you the Constitution provides not one, but two methods by which it can be changed by the will of the people and the states. NOT by the whims of a few or even by the majority vote of 9 appointed judges. There are a number of changes that I would like to see, but somehow I just don't want them bad enough to get the ball rolling...

Dave Hall

[Larry Blanchard]

I know I shouldn't say this, but ...

There's no penalty for breaking the ten commandments :-).

And no, I don't accept creation myths that say there is.

[Lew Hodgett]

Lew

[HeyBub]

Correct. An "opinion" is a belief with nothing to back it up, not the reverse.

"Killing" is not, per se, a sin. In fact killing is mandated in the Old Testament. For example: "If a man lie with a man as he would with a woman, he shall be put to death." It's "murder" that's prohibited. The presence of "kill" in the Decalogue is another of Martin Luther's mistakes when he translated the Bible from Hebrew and Greek into German.

Doesn't matter anyway. The 613 commandments in the Hebrew Scriptures are only binding on the Jews. Gentiles are free to do pretty much as they please (except for the Noachite laws of course).

[HeyBub]

Good rejoinder! At the risk of seeming even more idiotic, can we converge on whatever it was that gave you pause?

In the above post, there were two paragraphs of beliefs (the 1st and the last) and three paragraphs of facts. Do you dispute my facts or disagree with my beliefs? Hundreds of us would like to know...

Unless you have something particular in mind, it would seem you're just into name-calling. Trust me on this: you do not want to get into a name-calling confrontation with your betters.

[Han]

" [e-mail]" wrote in news: [e-mail]:

Doesn't that mean that the Supreme Court interpretes howto apply the Constitution? Maybe the medications I am taking after my surgery mae me think wrong, but that was I meant (too).

[Han]

dhall987 wrote in news: [e-mail]:

Maybe it's my medications, but I don't see what you mean, Dave. The People have made amendments to the Constitution, sometimes revoking previous amendments. The Supreme Court has used English, logic and opinion to interpret those in the context of laws, however poorly written. So, IMNSHO, it is all interpretation, and it isn't surprising that that might change over time.

[Ed Pawlowski]

Well that is very good news. Now we can get rid of the Supreme Court and all those lawyers asking for interpretations.

[dhall987]

I guess that it is a mindset.

If I hired an interpreter (say a french one) to assist in understanding some document written in a foreign language (in this case french), I would expect that they would actually interprete, not just make stuff up. I would expect that the meaning that they ascribe to the document would, to the best of their ability, be based on what the writers of that document intended, not what my employee wanted them to say. Even if the words changed a bit in meaning over time, I would expect them to do their best to tell me what it meant when written (again not what he or she wants it to mean). When they tell we that a sentence means something other than what the writers actually wrote, then they are simple frauds. When (or if) the Supreme Court says that the Constitution or any amendment thereto says something other than what it clearly actually says or what the writers (and approvers) of that document or any amendment thereto clearly intended, then they go from being "justices" to being dictators.

Again, there are many changes that I would like to see to the Constitution (such as rational controls on ownership and use of certain arms), but I truly believe that until it is changed in the manners set forth then it should stand as written and intended (like when the 2nd amendment pretty clearly says that we can keep and bear such arms).

Folks like to say that there is a "consensus" that certain parts of the Constitution means something different today than it did 200 years ago, but if that were true then the consensus would be expressed in the manners set up for amending the document. The writers simply put together a process to ensure that a reasonable consensus was actually reached before changes were made. Otherwise it is simple abuse by any transient majority that comes along (ask any african-american or hispanic-american that you know just how well that concept works).

I hope that the meds wear off and that all is well with you.

Dave Hall

[Larry Jaques]

On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 16:11:18 -0800, the infamous "Lew Hodgett" scrawled the following:

Why does everyone always get the number wrong?

is in his pleasure that a man really lives; it is from his leisure that he constructs the true fabric of self. -- Agnes Repplier

[Lew Hodgett]

--------------------------

Could also pass as a mission statement for the flat earth society.

Lew

[Lew Hodgett]

Lew

[J. Clarke]

The problem is that others may disagree with you on "what it clearly says" and the Founders did not write a users' manual explaining what they "clearly intended".

You are aware are you not that the Supreme Court, which for most of the 20th century managed to avoid taking a position on the second amendment, when finally backed into a corner and forced to rule, pretty much agreed with you on that point?

I've never seen an assertion of such "consensus". But the law does have to deal with situations that the founders could not possibly have envisioned (like "is cable television interstate commerce").

[Han]

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in news:0050b1e1$0$2088 $ [e-mail]:

My original statements were a bit sarcastic perhaps. I do believe that we need a Supreme Court. That doesn't mean I agree with all of the decisions coming from the SC. That is why we need Congress to pass laws that make sense (sometimes that's an oxymoron), and the SC to test whether the laws are OK under the Constitution and its amendments. And then we need the constitutional amendment procedures to fix what NOW is the best interpretation.

But I really liked the George Carlin version of the Commandments:

separation of the 3 powers is perhaps the greatest idea of the FF. Note that the idea has been evolving from the time of the Magna Charta, through the development of the Dutch Republic and the ideas of the French Revolution. It's a HUMAN thing.

[Han]

"J. Clarke" wrote in news: [e-mail]:

J. Clarke "got it". Thanks Dave for the wishes. Yes, the meds are being reduced, and they will wear off.

Interpretation/explanation are alwys good. Language evolves as do customs. Which reminds me of the story of the Allied Generals planning D-Day. In my words: There was a proposal and the Brits wanted to table it, which the Americans furiously (my word) opposed. Turns out that to table a proposal in British English means to put it on the table and discuss it, while in American English it means to put it on the table and shove it aside for later. I am really glad they figured it out since I was to be born in the fall of 1944 in German-occupied Holland.