|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
 Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2012 10:02 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Leon wrote: |
| As to religion I think it is very clear, as per what the first amendment says. I think that there is some room for debate as to the privacy issue, but saying that the supreme court can't rule on matters concerning the establishment of a religion is a non starter, constitutionally speaking. |
I think the issue is whether or not that We The People Act could result in any rights covered by the Bill of Rights being eroded. I would assume that's not the case (as state constitutions would still have to encompass those rights), but if you have some compelling constitutional argument showing it to be otherwise, I'd be curious to see. But again, I highly doubt that is the case, since Ron Paul is known to be an expert on the constitution.
| Quote: |
| The supreme court can be wrong, but it can be overturned, and I have more faith in the supreme court than in states like Texas, or Alabama, et al. |
Not me... The Supreme Court certainly hasn't prevented legislation like the PATRIOT Act or the recent NDAA.
| Quote: |
| I know the classic line about voting with your feet and moving somewhere more free, but that ignores that moving is not always practical, affordable, or even desirable. Why should some Americans be substantially more, or less, free than others, why should state law change in substantial ways every time I cross a border. |
Yeah, tell that to the many Americans who prefer to live abroad due the country having been wrecked by the federal government... If there was a state that was more or less free of the federal tyranny, then at least one could move there, instead of having the whole country turn into a police state. Ex. the SCOTUS sure hasn't protected us from things like the TSA goons groping and scanning people in airports all over the country.
| Quote: |
| Also the idea is that states can compete to be the best one, but in reality they can also compete to have the most lax labor laws and in effect create a third world workforce in America bringing American working conditions down across the board. I see it as a way to increase disunity among states, and the people living there. Also, if anything local politicians have the opportunity to be more corrupt in a much more localized way. Governors and mayors are equally, if not more corrupt than their federal counterparts. And in local races it is easier for more extreme viewpoints to take power in their state, or city. |
I'd like to see your evidence for state's rights bringing working conditions "down across the board"...
As for corruption, yes that will always exist. But I think you underestimate just how bad corruption is at the top of a centralized power structure. It is MUCH worse than having a local boss hog squeezing some county somewhere. Only a centralized structure is powerful enough to support things like the War on Drugs (ie. CIA trafficking drugs to fund all their terrorist activities around the world, and a prison-industrial complex built up around it), the War on Terror (police state), illegal wars of aggression around the world (military industrial complex), and wholesale looting of the economy (banker bailouts, austerity etc.). Local corruption can be bad, but it pales in comparison to that just mentioned.
| Quote: |
| Many people who want the government out of schools want to teach their extremism to American kids. |
Some parents may teach their children harmful things, but regardless people should absolutely be allowed to teach their own children what they want. The public school system is terrible, and I would never want to place my own children in it. The notion that the utterly corrupt government we have is there to protect children from their parents is insulting.
| Quote: |
| When I first heard heard about Ron Paul and his view on the war and the drug war I was very interested in him, and have read a lot about him, I find him frustrating, but if it came down to it I'd vote for him over any republican, other than possibly huntsman. If it were him vrs. Obama I'm not sure I could find the will to vote for either one. |
You can vote for whom you please (or not at all). For me it's a no brainer. Obama has been a horrible president, seriously one of the worst I can think of. Even I don't agree with Ron Paul on every little thing, but on the larger issues he's bang on, and there's no way I could even conceive of him being as bad as what we've got now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2012 8:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
The We the People Act is blatantly unconstitutional.
| Quote: |
SUMMARY AS OF:
1/14/2009--Introduced.
We the People Act - Prohibits the Supreme Court and each federal court from adjudicating any claim or relying on judicial decisions involving: (1) state or local laws, regulations, or policies concerning the free exercise or establishment of religion; (2) the right of privacy, including issues of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or (3) the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation where based upon equal protection of the laws.
Allows the Supreme Court and the federal courts to determine the constitutionality of federal statutes, administrative rules, or procedures in considering cases arising under the Constitution. Prohibits the Supreme Court and the federal courts from issuing any ruling that appropriates or expends money, imposes taxes, or otherwise interferes with the legislative functions or administrative discretion of the states.
Authorizes any party or intervener in matters before any federal court, including the Supreme Court, to challenge the jurisdiction of the court under this Act.
Provides that the violation of this Act by any justice or judge is an impeachable offense and a material breach of good behavior subject to removal.
Negates as binding precedent on the state courts any federal court decision that relates to an issue removed from federal jurisdiction by this Act. |
It seeks to foreclose the Supreme Court from ruling on incorporated rights under the Constitution, specifically: (a) the free exercise clause (1st Amendment), (b) the fundamental right to privacy (4th Amendment; "penumbras" of Bill of Rights), and (c) the equal protection clause (14th Amendment). It is NOT Ron Paul's best work. And it would be dangerous . . . if it had gotten anywhere. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2012 11:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| It seeks to foreclose the Supreme Court from ruling on incorporated rights under the Constitution, specifically: (a) the free exercise clause (1st Amendment), (b) the fundamental right to privacy (4th Amendment; "penumbras" of Bill of Rights), and (c) the equal protection clause (14th Amendment). It is NOT Ron Paul's best work. And it would be dangerous . . . if it had gotten anywhere. |
How is the above "unconstitutional" exactly? Just because it would prevent SCOTUS from "ruling" on rights doesn't mean it would strip those rights away. Those rights already exist, and under the 14th Amendment individual states cannot strip those rights away. So why should the Supreme Court be needed to rule on them in the first place, unless it were something not covered under the constitution?
(anyway, whether one agrees with the bill or not, I think that is the essential point that needs to be addressed) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2012 5:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| It seeks to foreclose the Supreme Court from ruling on incorporated rights under the Constitution, specifically: (a) the free exercise clause (1st Amendment), (b) the fundamental right to privacy (4th Amendment; "penumbras" of Bill of Rights), and (c) the equal protection clause (14th Amendment). It is NOT Ron Paul's best work. And it would be dangerous . . . if it had gotten anywhere. |
How is the above "unconstitutional" exactly? Just because it would prevent SCOTUS from "ruling" on rights doesn't mean it would strip those rights away. Those rights already exist, and under the 14th Amendment individual states cannot strip those rights away. So why should the Supreme Court be needed to rule on them in the first place, unless it were something not covered under the constitution?
(anyway, whether one agrees with the bill or not, I think that is the essential point that needs to be addressed) |
Before the supreme court ruling on religious tests people in some states were denied office for being an atheist, the specific case was someone in Maryland couldn't hold some local position in government because the state constitution had a religious test that required the belief in a higher being to hold office. That is clearly in violation of the constitution. One reason that I am so interested in Paul is that his followers are so fervent and say things like he has a perfect, constitutional, voting record. I'm not saying that he is all bad, but seeing people who are normally very skeptical acting in an aseptically manner for Paul is weird. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caniff
Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Location: All over the map
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2012 6:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| I'm not saying that he is all bad, but seeing people who are normally very skeptical acting in an aseptically manner for Paul is weird. |
What other options do we have? At least the guy's record indicates that he sticks by his principles, which is more than you can say for any of the other choices (Dem or GOP - as if the distinction even matters). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2012 7:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| Before the supreme court ruling on religious tests people in some states were denied office for being an atheist, the specific case was someone in Maryland couldn't hold some local position in government because the state constitution had a religious test that required the belief in a higher being to hold office. That is clearly in violation of the constitution. |
If it's "clearly" unconstitutional (and I'm not saying it isn't) then why does the Supreme Court even need to declare it as such?
| Quote: |
| One reason that I am so interested in Paul is that his followers are so fervent and say things like he has a perfect, constitutional, voting record. I'm not saying that he is all bad, but seeing people who are normally very skeptical acting in an aseptically manner for Paul is weird. |
Still waiting for your proof that the We the People Act is, in itself, unconstitutional. I guess what I'm asking is for proof that it is actually written in the constitution that the Supreme Court has the power that WTP proposes to take away. If that power is not granted to the courts in the constitution, then how can it be unconstitutional to take it away? Unless you're claiming to have found a fault in the constitution itself??...
I'm suggesting there's perhaps a more rational explanation: that the WTP Act would not strip away any of the rights you are worried about people losing. Instead it would simply prevent the federal courts from overstepping their jurisdiction on such matters. For example, as I understand, it is not written in the constitution that the federal government has to recognize/invalidate gay marriage or allow/disallow abortion etc. Your personal views on such issues and whether or not they are constitutional are separate matters... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
