A Victory For Freedom

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Ok -- it's great that we're telling people that it's wrong to kill people by killing people as example.

No, we are telling people that it is wrong to MURDER people. DUH!

After all, we don't put people that kill in self-defense in jail .

Yes -- we're telling people that it's wrong to murder through the example of executions.

It just doesn't jive with me.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by skywalker
You don't get it. We (judging from the comments of people in this thread) couldn't care less about our right to drink alcohol in some tiny, out-of-the-way town.

You don't get it, why should the majority of people care if this judge put the Ten Commandments in a courtroom?

Doesn't bother me one way or the other.

Besides whether they are there or not, that judges decisions will STILL be influenced by his religion. Same with all of those SCOTUS judges, they are still influenced by their religious beliefs, or lack thereof.

ACK!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yes -- we're telling people that it's wrong to murder through the example of executions.

It just doesn't jive with me.

It doesn't have to. That's what's great about opinions. They are like *******s, everyone's got one .

Yeah, we are telling people it is wrong to murder and using executions (which cannot be murder, technically) to prove the point.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Besides whether they are there or not, that judges decisions will STILL be influenced by his religion. Same with all of those SCOTUS judges, they are still influenced by their religious beliefs, or lack thereof.

You can't take the person out of the person .

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Yes -- we're telling people that it's wrong to murder through the example of executions.

It just doesn't jive with me.

It doesn't have to. That's what's great about opinions. They are like *******s, everyone's got one .

My little addition to that quote

"everyone's got one and they all stink.......except mine."

ACK!

[David Floyd]

skywalker,

So. He still didn't, and you said he did.

My bad. I thought he originally brought it up, the point is, I knew that I didn't.

HE may not think that it's ok personally, but the majority would, so sucks for him.

So, then, we come back to the main point. You guys believe that rights are whatever the government says they are, yet you still can't get around the Holocaust example, or any other similar ones.

You don't get it. We (judging from the comments of people in this thread) couldn't care less about our right to drink alcohol in some tiny, out-of-the-way town.

Unless you live there and want to drink, of course.

Imran,

You are forgetting the Commerce Clause. What power does Congress have to ban sex?

Umm, none, but the Commerce Clause was never intended to be used as the convenient federal loophole to get around individual rights that it's used for today.

And, correct me if I'm wrong, but the Commerce Clause is still subject to due process concerns, right?

A BETTER example is if a State Legislature banned sex, after such a law. Then yea, it's ok. Wouldn't like it, but it's still ok.

Really? So you're telling me that having sex isn't a right, and it's something that the government can and should be able to take away?

I understand you're going into law, but look outside of the law - not all law is good, proper, or moral.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Tuberski


You don't get it, why should the majority of people care if this judge put the Ten Commandments in a courtroom?

Doesn't bother me one way or the other.

Besides whether they are there or not, that judges decisions will STILL be influenced by his religion. Same with all of those SCOTUS judges, they are still influenced by their religious beliefs, or lack thereof.

ACK!

But it does bother a lot of people.

However, if a bunch of people don't like the law, they'll CHANGE it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

And, correct me if I'm wrong, but the Commerce Clause is still subject to due process concerns, right?

Yes, but so? This has little to do with your hypo. The Court will throw out this law because of the Commerce Clause.

Really? So you're telling me that having sex isn't a right, and it's something that the government can and should be able to take away?

No, I'm not telling you that. When did I ever say 'SHOULD'? The government (the Supreme Court or Congress through an Amendment) can say that sex isn't a right.... and then they can take away what you considered your sexual rights.

I understand you're going into law, but look outside of the law - not all law is good, proper, or moral.

DUH!! Are we falling into the same Floyd trap that everyone that doesn't agree with me is evil and/or stupid?

I just believe that law should be changed by democratic process and not unelected judges. You really don't believe in democracy (if your rights are all protected), so we come at it from different perspectives.

[David Floyd]

Yes, but so? This has little to do with your hypo. The Court will throw out this law because of the Commerce Clause.

I was making a different point - the point I was making was that just because the Commerce Clause theoretically gives a certain power to the government, it still isn't certain the government can exercise that power.

No, I'm not telling you that. When did I ever say 'SHOULD'? The government (the Supreme Court or Congress through an Amendment) can say that sex isn't a right.... and then they can take away what you considered your sexual rights.

You are saying that is a proper power of government - hence, they SHOULD BE ABLE TO, not that they SHOULD DO IT.

DUH!! Are we falling into the same Floyd trap that everyone that doesn't agree with me is evil and/or stupid?

Not at all. I'm just saying that anyone who doesn't behave morally is, well, immoral, and that absolute morals are rather self-evident.

I just believe that law should be changed by democratic process and not unelected judges.

True, but what happens when the majority votes to violate your rights? Do those rights suddenly cease to exist, or are they just being violated?

[PLATO]

the Commerce Clause was never intended to be used as the convenient federal loophole to get around individual rights that it's used for today.

and

That's what's great about opinions. They are like *******s, everyone's got one

and

So if the Supreme Court said there was no right to have sex

are all examples of why SCOTUS should be sticking to Strict construction viewpoints.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You are saying that is a proper power of government - hence, they SHOULD BE ABLE TO, not that they SHOULD DO IT.

Oh, I see now. Yeah, state governments at least.

that absolute morals are rather self-evident.

You've done it now, I'm on the floor laughing! Absolute morals are anything BUT self-evident!

True, but what happens when the majority votes to violate your rights? Do those rights suddenly cease to exist, or are they just being violated?

It depends. If there are rights encapsulated in writing somewhere in law and they ignore them, then they are being violated. IF there are no rights written down, or if they repeal the written down rights, then those rights suddenly cease to exist (bye, bye rights).

[Kuciwalker]

Floyd, well, how about we just ask everyone what these "absolute morals" are?

[David Floyd]

Imran,

You've done it now, I'm on the floor laughing! Absolute morals are anything BUT self-evident!

So murder being wrong is not self-evident, in your opinion?

And I know I ask a lot of questions, but I ask them to fully understand your opinion.

IF there are no rights written down, or if they repeal the written down rights, then those rights suddenly cease to exist (bye, bye rights).

So if 50% + 1 votes to eradicate, say, the right to life of 50% - 1, this is morally defensible?

[David Floyd]

Floyd, well, how about we just ask everyone what these "absolute morals" are?

I've got a better idea. How about you ask 100 people if murder is wrong. Then ask another 100 people if, say, stealing is wrong. Then ask another 100 people if it's wrong to kidnap someone and chain them in a basement.

[Kuciwalker]

[rant]SO WHAT if it is morally defensible? We aren't arguing over whether or not something is moral. We are arguing over whether or not something is constitutional!!!!!! For heaven's sake, get it right![/rant]