The Forgotten Right

[sarge87]

.

 

 

3. As long as we are laying it all out there I also despise the Obama is the savior/can do no wrong crowd. Obama (who I might add is MUCH MUCH smarter than all of us . . . head of his class at Harvard Law, wow!) does want what he feels is best for the US. Bush, likewise, wanted what he thought was best for the US. I have my own opinions of what is best for the US, and they don't align exactly with either.

 

Thanks, I haven't had my IQ assed since college. You're right though smart guys should rule it all, were'nt they intellectual elites the one who though ugenics was a pretty cool idea about a cntury ago, and that worked out pretty good, right?

 

I'm assuming you are talking about eugenics when you write "ugenics." (Also, I suppose that "that worked out pretty good" is more proper as "that worked out pretty well" but that is just another technicality.) I'm also curious about you having your IQ "assed;" I think I'd remember that part of the exam. Where exactly did I say that smart guys should rule it all? Are you just putting words in my mouth? I said that I thought Obama has good intentions for the country. I think you could say that about most, if not all, of our presidents.

 

Perhaps we should only elect average men? Surely our problems would be solved if we could just find a president with an average intellect.

 

Sorry I misspelled on a "Politics and Religon" thread. My spelling is terrible and my typing worse, so I apologize for any misunderstanding resulting there from. As to IQ, you stated that BO is "Much, Much smarter than all of us", I guess somehow I misconstrued that to mean he is smarter than me (so maybe my IQ should be re-assed). As to average intellect, I suppose all the presidents that have served this nation were "MUCH, MUCH smarter than all of us". So, yeah.....I guess a guy with an average intellect just couldn't handle the job, thank God we've never had any of those.

 

Odds are very good that Obama IS smarter than all of us who frequent this board. BO scored over a 171 on his LSAT which qualifies him for Mensa status. I don't know how much stock you put in that, but either way, it's very impressive.

 

And I don't know about all the presidents being much, much, smarter than us. Although W. Bush went to Yale, I'm thinking his daddy and his tutors had more influence than his intelligence. I'm not sure if there is a correlation between intelligence and success as a leader, but personally I am more comfortable with an intellectual than a dunce.

Where did you get the LSAT of 171? Obama never released his transcripts.

 

The only info that has been written about in any major publications is he graduated from his high school in Hawaii with a B- average. He attended Occidental College for 2 years then transferred to Columbia, where he graduated with a degree in Political Science without honors (1983).

 

I am aware he graduated magna cum laude and led the Harvard Law Review. What I can't figure is how you get into Harvard Law (since many thousands around the country and abroad are vying for 500 seats) without any real accomplishments from Columbia or anywhere else?

 

BTW, Bush also graduated Harvard MBA (1975).

[zoogs]

What I can't figure is how you get into Harvard Law (since many thousands around the country and abroad are vying for 500 seats) without any real accomplishments from Columbia or anywhere else?

 

LSAT?

[carlfense]

.

 

 

3. As long as we are laying it all out there I also despise the Obama is the savior/can do no wrong crowd. Obama (who I might add is MUCH MUCH smarter than all of us . . . head of his class at Harvard Law, wow!) does want what he feels is best for the US. Bush, likewise, wanted what he thought was best for the US. I have my own opinions of what is best for the US, and they don't align exactly with either.

 

Thanks, I haven't had my IQ assed since college. You're right though smart guys should rule it all, were'nt they intellectual elites the one who though ugenics was a pretty cool idea about a cntury ago, and that worked out pretty good, right?

 

I'm assuming you are talking about eugenics when you write "ugenics." (Also, I suppose that "that worked out pretty good" is more proper as "that worked out pretty well" but that is just another technicality.) I'm also curious about you having your IQ "assed;" I think I'd remember that part of the exam. Where exactly did I say that smart guys should rule it all? Are you just putting words in my mouth? I said that I thought Obama has good intentions for the country. I think you could say that about most, if not all, of our presidents.

 

Perhaps we should only elect average men? Surely our problems would be solved if we could just find a president with an average intellect.

 

Sorry I misspelled on a "Politics and Religon" thread. My spelling is terrible and my typing worse, so I apologize for any misunderstanding resulting there from. As to IQ, you stated that BO is "Much, Much smarter than all of us", I guess somehow I misconstrued that to mean he is smarter than me (so maybe my IQ should be re-assed). As to average intellect, I suppose all the presidents that have served this nation were "MUCH, MUCH smarter than all of us". So, yeah.....I guess a guy with an average intellect just couldn't handle the job, thank God we've never had any of those.

 

Odds are very good that Obama IS smarter than all of us who frequent this board. BO scored over a 171 on his LSAT which qualifies him for Mensa status. I don't know how much stock you put in that, but either way, it's very impressive.

 

And I don't know about all the presidents being much, much, smarter than us. Although W. Bush went to Yale, I'm thinking his daddy and his tutors had more influence than his intelligence. I'm not sure if there is a correlation between intelligence and success as a leader, but personally I am more comfortable with an intellectual than a dunce.

Where did you get the LSAT of 171? Obama never released his transcripts.

 

The only info that has been written about in any major publications is he graduated from his high school in Hawaii with a B- average. He attended Occidental College for 2 years then transferred to Columbia, where he graduated with a degree in Political Science without honors (1983).

 

I am aware he graduated magna cum laude and led the Harvard Law Review. What I can't figure is how you get into Harvard Law (since many thousands around the country and abroad are vying for 500 seats) without any real accomplishments from Columbia or anywhere else?

 

BTW, Bush also graduated Harvard MBA (1975).

 

173 is the average LSAT score for Harvard. Most believe that Obama got at least 171. Also, an excellent LSAT score is probably the most likely reason why Obama got accepted to HLS.

[huskertim]

[1. In what way in particular do you see this alleged transformation? Please, try to be specific. The "civilian army" youtube video has already been disproved. Obama was talking about an unarmed community service project similar to the CCC.

 

2. They are acting within the constitution. If they weren't, the action would be struck down by the Supreme Court.

 

 

Yeah, you know, like the Patriot Act was. No, let's forget that pesky Dred Scott thingy already shall we.

 

Sorry Tim, the Constitution isn't self-enforcing. The Patriot Act may indeed be found unconstitutional in time. Unfortunately the court system is nearly as slow as the legislature. And Dred Scott, really? As terrible as it was slavery was permissible under the Constitution for a very long time. I'm not sure what exactly that does for your point.

 

Yeah, Dred Scott was merely a very illustrative example that I tend to like, didn't realize there was a statute of limitations on historical references, my apoligies. As to self enforcement, too bad the guys who wrote that troublesome document didn't specify in any way who should be responsible for EXECUTING the law.

As to Judicial activism being an old practice, so are burglary, murder, and slavery, does that make them right? It isn't actually uncommon for each branch to exert its powers into the perview of the other, but I submit that it seems we have not only come to accept it but to expect it.

 

Who said that Dred Scott is too old to be relevant? I just pointed out that slavery was just as common and just as accepted prior to Dred Scott. That decision really didn't change anything.

 

Comparing judicial activism to burglary, murder and slavery = comparing Obama to Hitler. Irrelevant and inflammatory. (especially considering most judicial activism cases merely codify an existing trend...for example Dred Scott codifying slavery did not change anything....millions of people were already slaves prior to that court decision. More than anything it maintained the status quo.)

 

 

Bad thing=bad same as Obama=Hitler, noted. By the way, do you have a link to approved metaphors?

I agree the SC does "codify existing trends" and I think that's a problem. My simple laymans reading of our founding documents lead me to think they should determine the constituionallity of cases rather than responding to the ebbs and flows of current trends. It was my undrstanding that was one of the reasons for lifetime appointments.

This is one of the few posts lately that actually pertains to the property rights issue. Current trend supports government seizure of properties for a wide range of offenses, the question before the court shouldn't be, "does it fit the current model" but rather "does it violate the 4th amendment.

[huskertim]

.

 

 

3. As long as we are laying it all out there I also despise the Obama is the savior/can do no wrong crowd. Obama (who I might add is MUCH MUCH smarter than all of us . . . head of his class at Harvard Law, wow!) does want what he feels is best for the US. Bush, likewise, wanted what he thought was best for the US. I have my own opinions of what is best for the US, and they don't align exactly with either.

 

Thanks, I haven't had my IQ assed since college. You're right though smart guys should rule it all, were'nt they intellectual elites the one who though ugenics was a pretty cool idea about a cntury ago, and that worked out pretty good, right?

 

I'm assuming you are talking about eugenics when you write "ugenics." (Also, I suppose that "that worked out pretty good" is more proper as "that worked out pretty well" but that is just another technicality.) I'm also curious about you having your IQ "assed;" I think I'd remember that part of the exam. Where exactly did I say that smart guys should rule it all? Are you just putting words in my mouth? I said that I thought Obama has good intentions for the country. I think you could say that about most, if not all, of our presidents.

 

Perhaps we should only elect average men? Surely our problems would be solved if we could just find a president with an average intellect.

 

Sorry I misspelled on a "Politics and Religon" thread. My spelling is terrible and my typing worse, so I apologize for any misunderstanding resulting there from. As to IQ, you stated that BO is "Much, Much smarter than all of us", I guess somehow I misconstrued that to mean he is smarter than me (so maybe my IQ should be re-assed). As to average intellect, I suppose all the presidents that have served this nation were "MUCH, MUCH smarter than all of us". So, yeah.....I guess a guy with an average intellect just couldn't handle the job, thank God we've never had any of those.

 

Odds are very good that Obama IS smarter than all of us who frequent this board. BO scored over a 171 on his LSAT which qualifies him for Mensa status. I don't know how much stock you put in that, but either way, it's very impressive.

 

And I don't know about all the presidents being much, much, smarter than us. Although W. Bush went to Yale, I'm thinking his daddy and his tutors had more influence than his intelligence. I'm not sure if there is a correlation between intelligence and success as a leader, but personally I am more comfortable with an intellectual than a dunce.

 

 

I'm pretty sure Mensa qualifies based on IQ not LSAT. By the way, I work with the local Mensa chapter on some of thier mailings......Umm, not all quite as on the ball as one might think. Sorry, I know it's a technicallity, but I couldn't resist.

[carlfense]

.

 

 

3. As long as we are laying it all out there I also despise the Obama is the savior/can do no wrong crowd. Obama (who I might add is MUCH MUCH smarter than all of us . . . head of his class at Harvard Law, wow!) does want what he feels is best for the US. Bush, likewise, wanted what he thought was best for the US. I have my own opinions of what is best for the US, and they don't align exactly with either.

 

Thanks, I haven't had my IQ assed since college. You're right though smart guys should rule it all, were'nt they intellectual elites the one who though ugenics was a pretty cool idea about a cntury ago, and that worked out pretty good, right?

 

I'm assuming you are talking about eugenics when you write "ugenics." (Also, I suppose that "that worked out pretty good" is more proper as "that worked out pretty well" but that is just another technicality.) I'm also curious about you having your IQ "assed;" I think I'd remember that part of the exam. Where exactly did I say that smart guys should rule it all? Are you just putting words in my mouth? I said that I thought Obama has good intentions for the country. I think you could say that about most, if not all, of our presidents.

 

Perhaps we should only elect average men? Surely our problems would be solved if we could just find a president with an average intellect.

 

Sorry I misspelled on a "Politics and Religon" thread. My spelling is terrible and my typing worse, so I apologize for any misunderstanding resulting there from. As to IQ, you stated that BO is "Much, Much smarter than all of us", I guess somehow I misconstrued that to mean he is smarter than me (so maybe my IQ should be re-assed). As to average intellect, I suppose all the presidents that have served this nation were "MUCH, MUCH smarter than all of us". So, yeah.....I guess a guy with an average intellect just couldn't handle the job, thank God we've never had any of those.

 

Odds are very good that Obama IS smarter than all of us who frequent this board. BO scored over a 171 on his LSAT which qualifies him for Mensa status. I don't know how much stock you put in that, but either way, it's very impressive.

 

And I don't know about all the presidents being much, much, smarter than us. Although W. Bush went to Yale, I'm thinking his daddy and his tutors had more influence than his intelligence. I'm not sure if there is a correlation between intelligence and success as a leader, but personally I am more comfortable with an intellectual than a dunce.

 

 

I'm pretty sure Mensa qualifies based on IQ not LSAT. By the way, I work with the local Mensa chapter on some of thier mailings......Umm, not all quite as on the ball as one might think. Sorry, I know it's a technicallity, but I couldn't resist.

 

I'm sorry. You're wrong. Mensa qualifies by many different test scores. One of their potential admittance scores is scoring in the 95th percentile on the LSAT.

 

http://www.us.mensa.org/Content/AML/Naviga...fyingScores.htm

[carlfense]

[1. In what way in particular do you see this alleged transformation? Please, try to be specific. The "civilian army" youtube video has already been disproved. Obama was talking about an unarmed community service project similar to the CCC.

 

2. They are acting within the constitution. If they weren't, the action would be struck down by the Supreme Court.

 

 

Yeah, you know, like the Patriot Act was. No, let's forget that pesky Dred Scott thingy already shall we.

 

Sorry Tim, the Constitution isn't self-enforcing. The Patriot Act may indeed be found unconstitutional in time. Unfortunately the court system is nearly as slow as the legislature. And Dred Scott, really? As terrible as it was slavery was permissible under the Constitution for a very long time. I'm not sure what exactly that does for your point.

 

Yeah, Dred Scott was merely a very illustrative example that I tend to like, didn't realize there was a statute of limitations on historical references, my apoligies. As to self enforcement, too bad the guys who wrote that troublesome document didn't specify in any way who should be responsible for EXECUTING the law.

As to Judicial activism being an old practice, so are burglary, murder, and slavery, does that make them right? It isn't actually uncommon for each branch to exert its powers into the perview of the other, but I submit that it seems we have not only come to accept it but to expect it.

 

Who said that Dred Scott is too old to be relevant? I just pointed out that slavery was just as common and just as accepted prior to Dred Scott. That decision really didn't change anything.

 

Comparing judicial activism to burglary, murder and slavery = comparing Obama to Hitler. Irrelevant and inflammatory. (especially considering most judicial activism cases merely codify an existing trend...for example Dred Scott codifying slavery did not change anything....millions of people were already slaves prior to that court decision. More than anything it maintained the status quo.)

 

 

Bad thing=bad same as Obama=Hitler, noted. By the way, do you have a link to approved metaphors?

I agree the SC does "codify existing trends" and I think that's a problem. My simple laymans reading of our founding documents lead me to think they should determine the constituionallity of cases rather than responding to the ebbs and flows of current trends. It was my undrstanding that was one of the reasons for lifetime appointments.

This is one of the few posts lately that actually pertains to the property rights issue. Current trend supports government seizure of properties for a wide range of offenses, the question before the court shouldn't be, "does it fit the current model" but rather "does it violate the 4th amendment.

 

Absolutely, but unfortunately very few cases fit within our neatly defined parameters of what fits within the law. Law is very much less about black and white and much more about shades of gray. If you aren't in the legal profession in some fashion you'd probably be shocked by how few cases are actually covered by black letter law. One simple example would be copyright laws. These were originally intended to cover printed documents, but now with something like 80% of all documents only existing in electronic form, the copyright laws had to be expanded to cover electronic documents as well as printed documents. Almost all laws are written with some built in flexibility to allow for societal and technological changes. If the legislature didn't write laws this way they'd spend all of their time updating laws to fit a new pattern than they would in forming different legislation. The system likely couldn't function without this flexibility.

 

Also, the property rights issue is not nearly as dire as people think. In response to Kelo v. City of New London (the case that started all of these fears) most states enacted legislation specifically preventing similar seizures. Nebraska was included in these states.

[huskertim]

Firstly, Carl, I humbly acknowledge that I wasn't aware of the variety of test scores use be Mena, evidently my invitation was lost in the mail (how ironic).

 

As to gray issues, my first love (of a non physical nature) was astronomy and more specifically astro physics. Sadly the math was beyond me. It has always struck me in some way that the moon landing was filmed in black and white. In truth NASA used 238 shades of gray to pixelate it's images yet somewhere in there were both black and white.

 

I realize that absolutes are difficult, but they are a neccesary baseline of all that we see and all that we understand about our universe. It occurs to me those baselines in jurispudence lie within the framework of a document that was written in pedstrian enough language that even I could read it.