Communist Education?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

dp

[Saras]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Originally posted by Saras
Would you buy a Rolls if you could afford one, or rather some racier stuff?

Probably a Benz. I man was that a gorgeous car. $300K I could easily part with, if I had that kinda money to part with. So I have bourgeois tastes?

I picked up my bimmer from the dealers service yesterday evening and there I saw a sleek new sixer. I had an instant hardon

[Ned]

Originally posted by Agathon


Oh no!! I'll save him the trouble.

The Parable of the Field

Although I thought my parable of the dead Ned provided a fitting end to that saga.

Agathon, although your parable was pretty funny, I thought mine was hilarious. I literally couldn't stop laughing.

Quoth the field worker who spent his days sleeping under the shady oak tree, "Long live the Communist Party!"

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
The rights to life, liberty, and property, however, we assured in the 14th Amendment, and you may not be deprived of them except by due process of law. In other words, the government does not recognize them as absolute, nor do the citizens. We may take away your rights to life, liberty, and property in order to maximize the public good.

Not true, Che. There is a doctrine called "substantive due process" whereby statutes which unreasonably deny one of these basic rights are rendered unconstitutional.

Think of abortion.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Pax Africanus
On another note, Ned
I identify with the victims because I am an African American member of the military who has been to slums in NYC, Atlanta, Norfolk, Chattanooga, San Diego, Tijuana, San Juan, USVI, New London, Boston, Charleston, Bermuda, San Diego, UK, Holland, and etc. I have seen all manner of ills that a lot of people don't know exist. This poverty is not limited to the cities.

A lot of Americans(U.S.) say that the U.S.A. is the best place to live on Earth and that other countries and people are jealous of us. I am inclined to agree with this statement. Would you not I agree that if the reason that countries like the U.S.A., U.K, and France are so rich comes from slave labor, forcing other countries to buy harmful drugs from them, supporting dictators, controlling other countries resources, would'nt you agree that all these things invite bitterness and repercussions. If you found that the reason you were poor and your wife starving was because someone has stolen and continues to hold something that is rightfully yours what would you do?

In a play by George Bernard Shaw, one of the characters stated that all Great Britain had to do stay the most powerful country is maintain the status quo. My point is that the status quo as it stands is not a fair one and I see communism, socialism, fascism, even racism as and attempt to balance this. As it is Democratic Capitalist market society does not work, Neither does communism, fascism, or socialism. All for the same reasons. They don't look out for the citizens.

Pax, you didn't have to say that you were of African descent. It was quite obvious.

There is no doubt that blacks in the United States were kept "in their place" until that last few decades by systems of laws and discrimination that cumulatively were and are quite devestating. This, though, has nothing to do with our form of goverment. It has a lot to do with the legacy of the Civil War and Reconstruction, and by pure partisan politics where one party or the other over time has sought the allegiance of the blacks but have done nothing serious to remedy the basic issues.

Truman was the one who lead the fight to desegregate the military. The Supreme Court gave us Brown v. Board of Education. Eisenhower used the military to enforce that decision. Johnson, Senator Humphrey (Democrat) and Senator Dirksen (Republican) formed a coalition to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964. And Richard Nixon gave us Affirmative Action with goals and timetables (quotas).

And of course, we should not forget Martin Luther King.

But the process of ending Slavery and bringing equality to the African Americans has been long and tortuous, met at every juncture with resistance.

I fully understand and support Affirmative Action. There are many Republicans like me.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Ned


Not true, Che. There is a doctrine called "substantive due process" whereby statutes which unreasonably deny one of these basic rights are rendered unconstitutional.

Think of abortion.

But when Che said (quotes) "except by due process of law" it is not per se unreasonably (which doesn´t mean i have to agree with the reasoning behind it).

The death penalty, for example, takes away the right to life. Is it seen as unconstututional in the US?

[Ned]

BeBro, that is a different aspect of "due process" called procedural due process. So long as the defendant gets a fair trial, etc., the death penalty is authorized under the due process clauses.

Even so, the Supremes are religious about due process and the Death Penalty.

[BeBMan]

Well, that just proves the point - if I understood Che correctly his point was that rights are a human definition, therefore humans can also define limitations of those rights.

If you define per law/constitution that it is ok to have death penalty (which contradicts the basic right to life) under certain circumstances (which you said are fair trial, etc.) then other rights can as well be limited or re-defined (if it makes sense is another question) if your society wants that.

[Ned]

BeBro, not so.

Substantive due process would hold unconstitutional a law condemning all Jews to Death in a "final solution."

Substantive due process would not hold unconstitutional the Death penalty for murder - provided that there be a trial, etc.

See the difference?

[BeBMan]

And who defined that there is a difference?

[Spiffor]

Ned:
It all depends on the constitution by whoch the decision is limited.

For example, if a constitution doesn't protect any individual rights, and is only concerned with the political rules (how power changes), a genocide can be perfectly constitutional.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

So If I understand correctly. The trusims laid out in the DoI are directly in question here. As the US constitution took these to to be truly self evident and framed governmental powers and rights accordingly.

So I ask which of the moral statements in the DoI do you find not correct?

Sahll we consider the DoI nothing but BAM?

[Spiffor]

Ogie:
Were you talking to me?

[BeBMan]

I can´t speak for the rest, but I did´t say they´re all wrong

I´m just saying that a constitution is a) man-made, and therefore b) not untouchable per se. When you want to change it, it all depends on the justification why certain changes should be made IMO

[Ned]

The difference, BeBro is that in one, the right to life is denied based upon status that a person has no control over. The other is based upon conduct that require mens rea.