The Forgotten Right

[huskertim]

2. The Constitution as an enforceable document has to be interpreted and applied by someone. As you undoubtedly know that someone is the Supreme Court. Under the current Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution those actions were constitutional. (Personally, I prefer Scalia's interpretations but that is a different story.) I don't agree with the Court's interpretation of the actions that we discussed, but it is rather unbelievable to argue that they would allow the actions required for a facist scenario to play out as described in your Wolfe article. (notwithstanding the fact that the US populace wouldn't allow it.)

It has been awhile since high school civics but I sure am glad that the SC now has the power not only to interpete the constitution, but to enforce it as well. I remember the bad ol days when legislators legilated, judges ajudicated and executives executed. I much prefer to be under the protection of the unelected and virtually unimpeachable.

[huskertim]

Oh poo, my flame thrower ran out of gas, I guess I'll have to refuel and check back.

[carlfense]

Why all the separate posts huskertim? It makes it difficult to follow who you are replying to in each. I'll do my best to keep it straight.

[carlfense]

You shouldn't be. How can people rationally discuss our democratically elected president when he is being compared to one of the biggest mass murderers in world history. (You don't have to argue that Hitler was democratically elected, the most he ever won was 28% of the votes.) Let me give you an example of a typical flow of a discussion.

 

Oz Husker - You are a guy. (I think.) - Hitler was a guy too! - OMG OMG! - Oz Husker is just like Hitler!

 

Ridiculous.

 

Actually, that's called a plurality, a common occurrence in a parlimentary "democracy". If it really bugs you let me know and I'll fire off a letter to the brits and let them know that the guy calling himself the Prime Minister is a fraud and maybe that limey SOB should get a real job (like community organizer).

 

I fully understand what a plurality is. Thanks for the touch up though. I do notice how you sidesteppped the real topic raised (that some choose to compare Obama to Hitler through tenuous and vague similarities) and instead chose to focus on a technicality, one that is correct I might add. An interesting tactic . . . diverting attention mayhap?

[carlfense]

What makes you think that will be coming? Intuition? Secret sources? Conspiracy theorists?

 

I'm no history major or conspiracy nut, but I would like to submit example a into evidence

 

a: The entire collective history of civization.

 

A truly deep point here . . . or just more vague allegations? (and "collective history?!" COMMUNIST! )

[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.

[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.

[carlfense]

2. The Constitution as an enforceable document has to be interpreted and applied by someone. As you undoubtedly know that someone is the Supreme Court. Under the current Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution those actions were constitutional. (Personally, I prefer Scalia's interpretations but that is a different story.) I don't agree with the Court's interpretation of the actions that we discussed, but it is rather unbelievable to argue that they would allow the actions required for a facist scenario to play out as described in your Wolfe article. (notwithstanding the fact that the US populace wouldn't allow it.)

 

It has been awhile since high school civics but I sure am glad that the SC now has the power not only to interpete the constitution, but to enforce it as well. I remember the bad ol days when legislators legilated, judges ajudicated and executives executed. I much prefer to be under the protection of the unelected and virtually unimpeachable.

 

As far as your claim that you remember when the SC didn't create and influence laws . . . well you are either exaggerating or extremely old. Judicial activism is as old as the Supreme Court itself. I'm fairly confident you weren't born in the 1700s.

 

Our system of checks and balances operates today nearly exactly as it has for decades. Judicial activism is no new phenomenon. Read up Chisholm v. Georgia (1793), Marbury v. Madison (1803), and Johnson v. M'Intosh (1823) for starters.

[huskertim]

Why all the separate posts huskertim? It makes it difficult to follow who you are replying to in each. I'll do my best to keep it straight.

 

 

Separate posts were intended to clearify not confuse, evidently I errd on that one.

[huskertim]

You shouldn't be. How can people rationally discuss our democratically elected president when he is being compared to one of the biggest mass murderers in world history. (You don't have to argue that Hitler was democratically elected, the most he ever won was 28% of the votes.) Let me give you an example of a typical flow of a discussion.

 

Oz Husker - You are a guy. (I think.) - Hitler was a guy too! - OMG OMG! - Oz Husker is just like Hitler!

 

Ridiculous.

 

Actually, that's called a plurality, a common occurrence in a parlimentary "democracy". If it really bugs you let me know and I'll fire off a letter to the brits and let them know that the guy calling himself the Prime Minister is a fraud and maybe that limey SOB should get a real job (like community organizer).

 

I fully understand what a plurality is. Thanks for the touch up though. I do notice how you sidesteppped the real topic raised (that some choose to compare Obama to Hitler through tenuous and vague similarities) and instead chose to focus on a technicality, one that is correct I might add. An interesting tactic . . . diverting attention mayhap?

 

Nah, just entertaining myself. So far as sidesteping the issue. I think compareing Obama to Hitler is inflammatory (hence entertaining) but hardly rational. This is the kind of BS that distracts from intellegent debate, but on the other hand it does get your attention, exhibit a: this tread.

[huskertim]

What makes you think that will be coming? Intuition? Secret sources? Conspiracy theorists?

 

I'm no history major or conspiracy nut, but I would like to submit example a into evidence

 

a: The entire collective history of civization.

 

A truly deep point here . . . or just more vague allegations? (and "collective history?!" COMMUNIST! )

 

Merely pointing out the historical tendency for democracies to evolve into authoritian states IE various Greek states, Rome, and to a lesser extent democracy was actually practiced under a few Calief's during the early years of the rise of Islam in the middle east (too lazy to look up references for these at the moment, just firing from memory).

[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.

[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.

[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.)

[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.