Return to the Hot Topics Forum

 o
"Uncle Joe" continued

Posted by Factotem none (My Page) on
Sun, Feb 24, 13 at 15:04

dockside wrote,

Yes, pidge, the constitutionality of prohibiting the sale or distribution of contraceptives was settled in Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965. It was unconstitutional as it was seen as a violation of the right of privacy The use of contraceptives is even more a violation, and is obviously unconstitutional. But, it appears there are a few posters here who are unaware of this and, thus, respond by "not caring" so they don't explicitly demonstrate their ignorance of one aspect of the Constitution.

I would like fancifowl's and other conservatives' assessment of whether in their view, a law prohibiting the use of contraception would be a violation of the Constitution, irrespective of any particular case law. This goes to the issue fancifowl raised regarding re-reading of the text of the Constitution to imbue it with new meaning.

This post was edited by Factotem on Wed, Feb 27, 13 at 13:21


Follow-Up Postings:

 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

david52 wrote,

The Constitution also tells us that the Supreme Court is who decides what is Constitutional or not.

Where?


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

I stand corrected, it isn't written in the Constitution. According to some, the Court's power of judicial review was not confirmed until 1803, when it was invoked by Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison. The Chief Justice asserted that the Supreme Court's responsibility to overturn unconstitutional legislation was a necessary consequence of its sworn duty to uphold the Constitution. That oath could not be fulfilled any other way. "It is emphatically the province of the judicial department to say what the law is," he declared.

Although ..." A number of legal scholars argue that the power of judicial review in the United States predated Marbury, and that Marbury was merely the first Supreme Court case to exercise a power that already existed and was acknowledged. These scholars point to statements about judicial review made in the Constitutional Convention and the state ratifying conventions, statements about judicial review in publications debating ratification, and court cases before Marbury that involved judicial review.[13]

At the Constitutional Convention in 1787, there were a number of references to judicial review. Fifteen delegates made statements about the power of the federal courts to review the constitutionality of laws, with all but two of them supporting the idea.[14]

Likewise, at the state ratifying conventions, over two dozen delegates in at least seven states indicated that under the Constitution, the federal courts would have the power to declare statutes unconstitutional. "

it still isn't tea party revisionists.

Here is a link that might be useful: wiki link to Marbury v Madison


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

Factotem (yes, I really DID use your real moniker for a change :-) )-- As I said previously, I didn't know if it was unconstitutional or not, al though I didn't know of anything that would challenge it. I'm not that well versed in constitutional law concerning this kind of thing, other than Roe v Wade. But I DID say I'd be happy to hear other opinions.


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

bill_vincent wrote,

Factotem (yes, I really DID use your real moniker for a change :-) )-- As I said previously, I didn't know if it was unconstitutional or not, al though I didn't know of anything that would challenge it. I'm not that well versed in constitutional law concerning this kind of thing, other than Roe v Wade. But I DID say I'd be happy to hear other opinions.

I'm not so much interested in case law as I am the idea expressed by fancifowl and many conservatives regarding not re-reading the Constitution; this position often comes up in the context of discussions about the 2nd Amendment. I gather you do not feel qualified to opine about the scenario I offered, so I won't press that point with you. I hope other conservatives will weigh in, though.

Do you think the Constitution prohibits a state from making a statute that outlaws abortion? Again, I'm not looking for court decisions; I'm interested in your own reading of the Constitution.


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

I think it prohibits the states from impllementing an outright ban, but not chipping away around the edges, as they have been. Kind of the same thing as the 2nd amendment.


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

Here we go - plaque on the wall of the Supreme Court building.


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

well, I guess what I could say is that the constuitution doesnt express a right to privacy but the framers did show concern for protecting certain aspects of privacy. They sought to protect things such as beliefs, protection from search and seizure and personal information. The 9th could be read to provide justification to a broader reading of protecting privacy. This leads me to say, the state may pass a law but it would be unconstitutional.
Thats the best I can do without sitting down and doing more study. I have an interest in the 2nd, thats where Ive spent my energies since the clinton regime & thats probably where I am best versed?
This thread isnt about this tho so thats it fer bro.


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

  • Posted by vgkg 7-Va Tidewater (My Page) on
    Sun, Feb 24, 13 at 17:31

Whew! Just finished thread #1...to get back to Joe for a moment...
---
Seems to me that conservatives (or rather, republicans) actually have a secret crush on ol' Joe. They protest way too much about him, esp since it's not working on Teflon Obama . Repubs are trying their best to resist Joe's endearing charm by dressing it up as buffoonery. They won't ever win on this unless Joe does something substantially stupid.

"Let me put it this way - I'm not buying that suddenly we need all these semi-automatic, powerful weapons for personal protection. "

But David, in your previous paragraph you did mention something about "zombies"


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

Nahhhh-- it's just that he gives us so much ammunition. :-)

edit to add:
Kinda like the Democrat version of Dan Quayle. :-)

This post was edited by bill_vincent on Sun, Feb 24, 13 at 17:51


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

  • Posted by vgkg 7-Va Tidewater (My Page) on
    Sun, Feb 24, 13 at 17:56

Quayle lacked the charm :)


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

One might say that Dan Quayle lacked a lot more than charm.

He lacked the charisma, the intelligence, the respect of both sides of the aisle have for Joe Biden.

As was said, he was "no John Kennedy", he was just a blip in the radar that became Vice President, and then just held the title of VP.

Nope Joe Biden is far from the "Democratic version of Dan Quayle".


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

I posted just a few of the M-A-N-Y gaffes of Joe.
My point is why would anyone take anything he says
serious ? When you hear and read all of his stupid comments....what does that say about his reasoning.

He doesn't know what he is talking about when he steps outside his front door.
The best education in the world does not necessarily.....
give one a pass from being stupid.

Yes, it's possible to be both smart and stupid. I'm sure someone you know comes to mind at this moment.
Maybe Joe Biden.
He is a highly educated individual who can be so smart in one way, and incredibly stupid in other ways mostly opening his mouth.
IMO


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

It's the Obama-Fu.

Their congitive dissonance is driving them bonkers.


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

Yes, you are proving your point.


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

fancifowl wrote,

well, I guess what I could say is that the constuitution doesnt express a right to privacy but the framers did show concern for protecting certain aspects of privacy. They sought to protect things such as beliefs, protection from search and seizure and personal information. The 9th could be read to provide justification to a broader reading of protecting privacy. This leads me to say, the state may pass a law but it would be unconstitutional.
Thats the best I can do without sitting down and doing more study. I have an interest in the 2nd, thats where Ive spent my energies since the clinton regime & thats probably where I am best versed?

So in some instances, you advocate re-reading the Constitution in order to find new meaning in it when constitutional questions arise. For example, you say, "the constuitution doesnt express a right to privacy," but you believe a re-reading of the Constitution upon considering the question of a state law prohibiting the use of contraception reveals such a right through implication, and therefore it would be unconstitutional for a state to prohibit the use of contraception. in fact, I infer that you believe that prohibiting a person from using contraception seems so invasive that you feel it should be unconstitutional, even though there is no language that seems to cover that sort of invasion-of-privacy law, so you are willing to look for something that might contain even an indirect implication that the framers were concerned about privacy, and then extrapolate that to impute a new right, never previously articulated in around 200 years, in order to protect privacy, because it seems so essential. That is, you think in some situations it is valid to re-read the Constitution -- in this case, you're going with the 9th Amendment -- for the purposes of deciding the constitutionality of laws. Is that accurate?

This thread isnt about this tho so thats it fer [me] bro.

Well, I started this thread, and my thread-starting post was about this, the thread title notwithstanding. I appreciate your not ducking this line of discussion.


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

Dano, has a point??!!

I actually used to like biden, I even at one point considered I could possibly vote for him. He migt be a great guy to enjoy a few beers with. It ends there now tho. I would have no beer with him today.


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

  • Posted by RpR_ 3-4 (My Page) on
    Sun, Feb 24, 13 at 19:45

Posted by esh_ga

"Exactly and that's just one of the reasons having a gun in every home is not the solution."-----------------Hmmm, being robbed, raped or murdered is-BRILLIANT.

If you are going to use a shotgun get a repeater. There are some that are easily small enough for even a woman five feet tall to easily handle.
Much easier than a bulky limited capacity double barrel.


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

  • Posted by RpR_ 3-4 (My Page) on
    Sun, Feb 24, 13 at 19:53

Posted by littleonefb
.

"He lacked the charisma, the intelligence, the respect of both sides of the aisle have for Joe Biden.

As was said, he was "no John Kennedy", he was just a blip in the radar that became Vice President, and then just held the title of VP.

Nope Joe Biden is far from the "Democratic version of Dan Quayle".--------------------------That is true as Quayle had intelligence and Biden apparently does not.
If Biden were babbling as he is and were a conservative the press would run out of space to attack his every utterance.

Some said Biden is crazy like a fox--perhaps, but it would be the slow ones lying dead on a highway.

This post was edited by RpR_ on Sun, Feb 24, 13 at 19:54


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

He lacked the charisma, the intelligence, the respect of both sides of the aisle have for Joe Biden.

I mighta been with you until you got to intelligence. :-)


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

the thread title is still"Uncle joe"??

I believe the 9th & the 14th were used to forbid the states from entering a persons bedroom. I said before that I would have to do a lot more reading to come up with anything more. I am just not interested.

My opinions are strictly that. I dont try to re read the constitution and dont think it should be. I dont try to remake the meanings, just as I take the 2nd for what it says so clearly. It may be the clearest , not that a whole host try to re read it.

All in on this subject.


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

"Much easier than a bulky limited capacity double barrel."

I will give you limited capacity, but a Stoeger coach gun or Defense double is anything but bulky. They also have less moving parts. It would not jam like a semi-auto. You also would not short shuck a shell like you might with a pump in a high stress situation.
PS I do not own a double barrel. I have just looked at the gun magazines and have seen the defense doubles advertised.


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

I can't believe anyone would compare Joe Biden to Dan Quayle, and do so in a public forum no less.

Lets see, I've got a couple of issues of "The Quayle Quarterly" here ...

"This president is going to lead us out of the recovery. It will happen." ~ Dan Quayle, 1992

"Republicans understand the importance of bondage between parent and child." ~ Dan Quayle, 1988.

"If you elect Bill Clinton and Al Gore you can say goodbye to water, goodbye to food and goodbye to your jobs." ~ Dan Quayle, 1992

"My friends, we can and we will never, never surrender to what is right." ~ Dan Quayle, From Winter 1992/3 Final Edition

"What a waste it is to lose one's mind, or not to have a mind is being very wasteful. How true that is." ~ Dan Quayle, From Winter 1992/3 Final Edition

"Malarkey" ~ Joe Biden


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

How well and thoroughly they have forgotten the unforgettable Dan Quayle and his greatest talents, led specifically by his ability to massacre the simplest expressed ideas.


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

Marshall, the simplest expressed idea massacred would be "Potatoe". :D


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

Hoot! I remember that Boner by Dan. As I remember, Bush I gave him the chair for the Administration's science committee. No wonder the state of government science fell into...


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

How well and thoroughly they have forgotten the unforgettable Dan Quayle and his greatest talents, led specifically by his ability to massacre the simplest expressed ideas.

I don't know that it is "forgotten" as much as the faithful are dutifully repeating what they are told.


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

fancifowl wrote,

the thread title is still"Uncle joe"??

Yes, I wanted to continue the line of discussion that the last "Uncle Joe" thread generated so I used that title. The first post clearly indicates why I started the new thread. As with any thread, anyone is free to participate or sit out; you are not somehow constrained from responding because of the words in the topic title.

I believe the 9th & the 14th were used to forbid the states from entering a persons bedroom.

Again, I'm not interested in case law. I'm interested in your own view of the reading of the Constitution. You previously stated that there was no right to privacy in the Constitution, but you thought it appropriate to add one based on your impression of how the framers felt about privacy; presumably, you thought such a re-reading was valuable because of how important a constitutionally-protected right to privacy is to you. Or, in other words, you engaged in re-reading the Constitution for what you considered a good purpose.

I would have to do a lot more reading to come up with anything more.

Again, I am interested not in your researching case law, but in your view of constitutional interpretation. The only reading you would need to do would be of the Constitution itself.

I am just not interested.

But you are invoking a principle of constitutional interpretation that you believe is correct and using it to make a case for your view of the 2nd amendment. I don't understand why you won't support your philosophy after invoking it.

My opinions are strictly that. I dont try to re read the constitution and dont think it should be. I dont try to remake the meanings

Now I'm confused. Previously, you stated that when read, "the constuitution doesnt express a right to privacy", and then went on to explain that you could re-read it to re-make the meaning of certain parts so they included a right to privacy. Are you now retracting that, and saying that you don't believe that there ought to be a constitutionally-protected right to privacy because you don't think the Constitution should be re-read and re-made with meanings that aren't explicitly expressed?

All in on this subject.

That's too bad. I was hoping you would explain the basis for your interpretation of the 2nd amendment, but I guess you're bailing out.


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

I assume you've already read that on previous posts. I base MY interpretation on what it says. I've studied the history, sources, & authorities for the constitutional gaurantee of the right to keep and bear arms. I use these readings to base myinterpretation & opinions And now, I really am done!


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

  • Posted by RpR_ 3-4 (My Page) on
    Sun, Feb 24, 13 at 22:43

Posted by frank_il

"I will give you limited capacity, but a Stoeger coach gun or Defense double is anything but bulky. They also have less moving parts. It would not jam like a semi-auto. You also would not short shuck a shell like you might with a pump in a high stress situation.
PS I do not own a double barrel. I have just looked at the gun magazines and have seen the defense doubles advertised. "----------------------I do own a double-barrel, pump action and semi-auto shotgun and have shot all three.

I also would rule against a semi-auto, even though they rarely do jam but if they do can take time to clear.
I have never had a pump action jam. I have had a miss fire but if you have shot a pump, even the cheapest, cycle extremely quickly or as fast the shooter is capable of.
I have never short cycled a shotgun in my life and any one who would do that under stress, would have even more problem breaking open a double and reloading.

There are some shooters of double-guns both shotguns and rifles who have near perfected a style where they carry two extra cartridges in the fingers of one hand while shooting and can fire four shots with amazing speed but I doubt there are many men or women who have become competent with this method who are not professional shooters


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" and his shotgun mouth

I had a Stoeger Coach gun for a while when I was gonna do some cowboy shooting. I have a couple old Knickerbocker double 12s now, just waiting for a gun buy back in Erie so I can get a few bucks or groceries for them. I hope to take in 5-6 for the reward. They only have about a $50 wholesale value and the the buy back will pay 100 or so.Im a capitalist at heart.


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

  • Posted by RpR_ 3-4 (My Page) on
    Sun, Feb 24, 13 at 22:54

Posted by althea

"Marshall, the simplest expressed idea massacred would be "Potatoe". :D"---------------------The only thing that is more moronic than that, is President Obama having said he visited all 57 states.
I think some one should visit his state of mind but then he is only the president of course whereas: Biden said the most important thing facing the middle class is a three letter word-- JOBS.

So you can have your snit-fit over the word potato while we have a president and vice-president who cannot count.

This post was edited by RpR_ on Sun, Feb 24, 13 at 23:07


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

  • Posted by RpR_ 3-4 (My Page) on
    Sun, Feb 24, 13 at 23:05

Posted by fancifowl

"I had a Stoeger Coach gun for a while when I was gonna do some cowboy shooting. I have a couple old Knickerbocker double 12s now, just waiting for a gun buy back in Erie so I can get a few bucks or groceries for them. I hope to take in 5-6 for the reward. They only have about a $50 wholesale value and the the buy back will pay 100 or so.Im a capitalist at heart."-------------------A Knickerbocker that is in shooting condition is worth on average between 75-100 dollars, so you may short-change yourself.


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

"I have never short cycled a shotgun in my life and any one who would do that under stress, would have even more problem breaking open a double and reloading."

I have done it on a duck.


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

They are both tight< i'd shoot em without fear. I no longer have my shop nor FFL so Id have to wholesale em, & there isnt a lot of interest in them now, not around here. One either has to end up in the river or a buy back, very short barrels.
When I was a kid I 1st used a single 12 for deer and was taught to carry the next slug tween my fingers, was pretty fast then, not these days i'd bet.


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

I can't believe anyone would compare Joe Biden to Dan Quayle, and do so in a public forum no less.

Dan Quayle just made statements that were utterly stupid..No other apt description. Biden made one that was not only dangerous as hell, but as advice to his wife, could've gotten her put in jail. Quayle never quite reached THAT low. I'll agree with whomever it was above that put him in the same class as Obama with the 57 states comment.


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

Biden has a lengthy history in the Senate of working with everyone, building a consensus, getting things done. Now, from all reports I'm reading, his work on whatever gun legislation that will come up for a vote is being carefully thought out, respectfully taking into account the POV of police, ATF, La Pierre, gun manufacturers, etc. and trying to come up with something that will make a difference and might actually pass. Quietly. In fact, the occasion where this exchange took place, Biden was seeking input from citizens in a town hall setting. IMO, he's trying, and those in the know say he's doing a decent job.

Dan Quayle, if I'm not mistaken, did not have a particularly distinguished political career.


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

Lets take a look at that effort Biden's making. he's got a policeman on his committee whose on was arrested for attempting a mass murder at his school. As for the POV of police, he's taking into account the POV of the police organizations that agree with HIS POV. Give me till tomorrow night, and I'll give you a list of police organizations and leaders who are completely against many of the gun control measures that are up for consideration, including the AWB and HCMB.


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

fancifowl wrote,

I assume you've already read that on previous posts. I base MY interpretation on what it says. I've studied the history, sources, & authorities for the constitutional gaurantee of the right to keep and bear arms. I use these readings to base myinterpretation & opinions

You said we shouldn't re-read the Constitution to add meanings, but you also said there's no right to privacy written in to the Constitution, but you agree with re-reading it to add one. So far, you are showing a double standard depending on what you want the result to be. You're a strict constructionist when it comes to the 2nd amendment, and a judicial activist on the 9th, by your own words. I have no issue with you having a firm principle of Constitutional interpretation. I do have an issue with you having a different one for each situation. Multiple principles means no principles.


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

fancifowl...you are a wise bird for not getting embroiled in the "I just want to hear your views" lure.

Its always going to be a set-up.


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

citywoman2012 wrote,

fancifowl...you are a wise bird for not getting embroiled in the "I just want to hear your views" lure.

Its always going to be a set-up.

It's always disappointing how frightened conservatives are of discussing their views honestly. And the idea that the prospect of learning something is a form of "set-up" gives a very revealing glimpse into the conservative mindset.

I suppose it's projection that citywoman2012 considers a request for someone else's views to be a "lure" that's "always going to be a set-up." And it's unfortunate that citywoman2012's fear of this discussion moving forward is so extreme she encourages a third party not to participate. And the articulation of the idea that a conservative cannot intelligently discuss a position they hold without somehow being tricked into a damaging admission or being made to look foolish is terribly insulting -- to conservatives.

I do have to expose the straw man, though; I never said "I just want to hear your views." I want to hear them and then explore them. But it seems that many conservatives, such as citywoman2012, are afraid of what might come out if that discussion actually takes place. This fear of one's own beliefs being probed is a telling weakness in the conservative stance. They don't believe in the integrity of their own positions, apparently.


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

  • Posted by RpR_ 3-4 (My Page) on
    Mon, Feb 25, 13 at 1:34

Posted by Factotem
.

Its always going to be a set-up.

It's always disappointing how frightened conservatives are of discussing their views honestly. And the idea that the prospect of learning something is a form of "set-up" gives a very revealing glimpse into the conservative mindset. "--------------------If you want to do that start a thread with the title for example "Let's discuss factotem".

No one is stopping you, if you are infatuated with others opinions.
It is odd though how it seems the only opinion you ever give is of other posters, hmmm.


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

RpR_ wrote,

Posted by Factotem
.
Its always going to be a set-up.

It's always disappointing how frightened conservatives are of discussing their views honestly. And the idea that the prospect of learning something is a form of "set-up" gives a very revealing glimpse into the conservative mindset. "--------------------If you want to do that start a thread with the title for example "Let's discuss factotem".

No one is stopping you, if you are infatuated with others opinions.
It is odd though how it seems the only opinion you ever give is of other posters, hmmm.

Thanks for the handy thread-titling advice!

It is odd how I give opinions of other posters. Odd. Hmmm. Ok, that subject's been exhausted. Hey, what happened with those professors you cited who turned out to hold the opposite opinion to the one you claimed they held? Do you think conservatives in general are more or less frightened than you are to admit their misstatements?


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

CW, it matters not what you think of the VP. He is extremely well respected by his peers and by over half the country. If you want to use those few comments as the benchmark of his career, have at it.

You didn't vote for him , you would never vote for him so nothing he could do would change your mind.....he'll live.


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

"It's always going to be a set up"

How unfair it would be in hot topics to repeat, as a reminder, potentially embarrassing things a person has posted in the past: word for word and in context, even within the framework of an entire thread.

The unfairness of it all! That's cheating!
No stinkin' fair!

Some people (aka libruls aka libtards) here do the devil's work in setting others up to FORCE them to say that stuff!

Oh the horror!


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

It's always disappointing how frightened conservatives are of discussing their views honestly. And the idea that the prospect of learning something is a form of "set-up" gives a very revealing glimpse into the conservative mindset.

So true.


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

I find it amusing that those that voted for Romney have a very short memory when it comes to some of the "gaffes" that Romney made. Hard to take their comments about their Vice President's seriously.

~Ann


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

He can see binders full of women from his house!


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

I think we spent 1/2 of a term going over how privacy is protected. It's not oulined in the constitution, but it's expressly observed through several decisions and Griswold was the one that really oulined the right.

"In 1965, Griswold v. Connecticut 1 defined a constitutional right of privacy. In Griswold, the United States Supreme Court first recognized that there are behavioral matters into which the government may not intrude, specifically adult consensual marital sexual relations. 2 The Court found this source of privacy rights in two different locations. The majority opinion, written by Justice Douglas, determined that a notion of privacy surrounding the Bill of Rights was implicit in the expressed freedoms and prohibitions of government actions. 3 The second source was an unenumerated right retained by the people through the Ninth Amendment of the United States Constitution. 4 The Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution reads, "the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." 5 Justice Goldberg, in his concurring opinion, was the first Justice to attempt to give substance to the Ninth Amendment, finding privacy a retained right although unenumerated in the Bill of Rights. 6 For almost 175 years, the Court had been silent on the content of the Amendment, but now three Justices found a new constitutional right of privacy to be a retained right and a majority of the Court found the Ninth Amendment to to be a signpost to the existence of rights not expressly stated in the text."
D Helscher: Griswold v. Connecticut and the Unenumerated Right of Privacy, 15 N. Ill. U. L. Rev. 33

But it realy spoke to me during the study, it is nobody's right to know what goes on in my bedroom. Nor is it my right to know what goes on in my neighbor's. That really sunk into my head. That is black and white. Something you'll never hear me say. So no, it is not "in the constitution" per se, but morality and critical thinking make privacy a right of every American.

If you want me to put it into my conservative ideals, not only do I want the government out of my business, finances, food, and home, I want everyone else out of those. NUNYA! Which means, everyone else can say that too. Our rights aren't just for some, they're for everyone.

Here is a link that might be useful: the article itself


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

...as long as abortion is not allowed and your daughter is kept chaste until at least childhood, if not marriage...so the bedroom is off limits but not the bodies inside.


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

you know what we should marshall? Put a camera or other sort of log on those that think the right belongs only to them. That way they can show us the way to how bedroom rights can be monitored. They'd love that wouldn't they?


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

You betcha, robin

They MUST legislate morality and righteous behavior.


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

Bill, I'm going to wait and see what Biden and his committee propose on back ground checks, limiting the size of magazines, and straw purchasers. An assault weapon ban won't pass.

You know, the actual proposals, and then we'll see how it is modified when presented to the entire senate and then the house.


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

There certainly are things that could be done to abet these gun disasters but more legislation applied to the lawful owners isnt going to make a whit of difference. few people will abide by any background checks, there are over 300 million in private hands. how many years would it take to get them on some kind of file if even 25% of the people complied. there are over 100 million hi cap mags in circulation, do you think they are gonna magically disappear? They have a life of 100 years. Magazines are a very simple thing to make at home, they can even be printed out on a computer, as can lower receivers and entire guns.
lets make the politicians cause lawyers, cops and judges & Das to enforce the existing laws. That can be done right now, no lag time and it would actually make a difference.
And, put good ol Joe back in his box.


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

Enforcing the existing laws - about that:

begin quote:

"Amid an intense debate over gun control in the wake of the mass shooting in Connecticut, the federal agency at the heart of firearms regulation in America is so beleaguered and under-resourced that it has not had a confirmed director in six years.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, a division of the Justice Department, is supposed to regulate the nation’s gun industry. But many within ATF say it is the industry that dominates the agency.

The gun lobby, concerned about government regulation of firearms ownership, has taken steps to limit the resources available to ATF and to prevent the agency from having a strong leader, according to former and current ATF officials.

For decades, the National Rifle Association has lobbied successfully to block all attempts to computerize records of gun sales, arguing against any kind of national registry of firearms ownership. And despite the growth of the gun industry and the nation’s population, ATF has fewer agents today than it did nearly four decades ago: fewer than 2,500.

“If the administration and Congress are serious about addressing this problem, they need to fund the gun police, the agency charged with administering the firearms regulations,” said Michael Bouchard, a former ATF assistant director. “Unless they are going to do this completely, simply passing some form of gun legislation is only part of the solution.”

The man currently at the helm of ATF is B. Todd Jones, an interim acting director who works part time at the agency, juggling his position there with his job as U.S. attorney in Minnesota.

-snip-

President Obama’s nominee to be ATF’s permanent director is Andrew Traver, who oversees the bureau’s Chicago office. But his nomination has been stalled in the Senate for two years because Traver raised the ire of the gun lobby with comments it has characterized as anti-firearm. The NRA, which immediately opposed his nomination, has said Traver is linked to gun-control advocates and anti-gun activities in Chicago.

No permanent ATF director has been on the job in the six years since Congress required that the position be confirmed by the Senate. That action allowed the gun lobby to have a say on Capitol Hill about the agency’s leadership, according to ATF officials.

Even Michael J. Sullivan, a former U.S. attorney in Boston nominated by President George W. Bush, could not get confirmed. He was blocked by three senators who accused him of being hostile to gun dealers. One of the senators was a member of the NRA’s board of directors.

Past and current Justice Department officials say the gun lobby has further hampered the work of ATF by moving to block the government’s attempts to put gun-ownership records into an easily accessible computer database. When guns are used in crimes, such as the massacre in Newtown, Conn., ATF employees must go through an antiquated, laborious process, mostly done by hand, to trace the firearms to the stores where they were bought.

The agency, which has a budget of about $1.1 billion, is charged with investigating gun trafficking and regulating firearms sales. However, it is able to inspect only a fraction of the nation’s 60,000 retail gun dealers each year, with as much as eight years between visits to stores. "snip end quote

So its a pretty good racket - have the NRA complain about enforcing the existing laws, while at the same time lobbying to make sure they can't.

Here is a link that might be useful: link


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

What I don't understand is why anyone would think a lawful owner = responsible owner . Many, many murders are committed by people who own the gun legally. Legal ownership is not a predictor of non violent behavior.


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

of course gun owners are leery of Travers. he has aligned himself with anti gun organisations like brady and Int. chiefs of police and others. That would certainly disqualify him from the job. seems simple enuff?

Every gun shop I know has been inspected a lot more than once in 8 years!! There are roughly 1/2 the FFL holders today as there were 15 years ago.


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

Bill, I'm going to wait and see what Biden and his committee propose on back ground checks, limiting the size of magazines, and straw purchasers. An assault weapon ban won't pass.
You know, the actual proposals, and then we'll see how it is modified when presented to the entire senate and then the house.

Agreed.


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

he has aligned himself with anti gun organisations like brady and Int. chiefs of police and others. That would certainly disqualify him from the job. seems simple enuff?

I don't see why that would disqualify him, per se.


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

same reason you might not want some one aligned with NRA or GOA. They should be as un biased as is possible.


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

I don't see why that would disqualify him, per se.

Because of his bias. But again, I'll wait till he comes out with actual recomendations before I really make that accusation. Of course, that would include if someone ELSE were to submit a bill for consideration (Feinstein) and he were to strenuously support it.


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

rob333 wrote,

But it realy spoke to me during the study, it is nobody's right to know what goes on in my bedroom. Nor is it my right to know what goes on in my neighbor's. That really sunk into my head. That is black and white. Something you'll never hear me say. So no, it is not "in the constitution" per se, but morality and critical thinking make privacy a right of every American.

If you want me to put it into my conservative ideals, not only do I want the government out of my business, finances, food, and home, I want everyone else out of those. NUNYA! Which means, everyone else can say that too. Our rights aren't just for some, they're for everyone.

So, you believe that rights that you consider important should be considered to be part of the Constitution even when they are not "'in the Constitution' per se."

You believe it is not just acceptable, but critical for our democracy, that judges re-read the Constitution to go beyond what is written in it to add interpretations.

Correct?


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

What pathetic reasoning. Demand total neutrality in a highly politicized agency of a highly politicized Department. You want someone without any experience and no earlier contact with gun regulating and such. What a lovely bubble some folks call home.


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

Hey Marshall-- everyone demands neutrality from conservatives, and then pisses and moans when it doesn't happen. What's good for the goose....
BUT AGAIN-- I'm taking a wait and see approach. That's as close to neutral as you'll EVER see me come.


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

"morality and critical thinking make privacy a right of every American."

So we have to legislate morality now? Or were you saying that's not a moral that is held by all Americans? I would say I'm confused, but I'm not.

Your. Rights. End. At. My. Nose. period. No exceptions.

It's what this country was founded on. If someone doesn't like that tenet, then the USA probably shouldn't be their home.


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

Your. Rights. End. At. My. Nose. period. No exceptions.

I think that statement is arguable. I feel that I have the right not to smell your cigarette smoke on the beach, but you have a right to smoke on the beach. So whose "right" is more valid? It may be legal to smoke on the beach, but what if your smoke is disturbing another person and interfering with their right to breathe clean air?


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

One can get up and leave at the beach. However, I cannot get up and leave my desk if someone is smoking next to me at work. Same way I look at nosiy car music vs noisy house music. I'm going to drive off and it's an "inconvenice" when it's car, but I can't leave my house every night and sleep some place else, a basic need. So the car is ok, but the house is not. Outside smoking is ok. I don't like smoke and I hate walking past the smoking area on my way to the restaurant, but I shrug it off. If they were on the other side of the road on hospital property, that'd be different. Sometimes, we just gotta get along. Even if it is irritating.

Maybe the saying should be your rights end at my doorstep?


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

As an ex smoker who can't stand the smell of smoke now. I also don't feel like I have the right to tell people who are smoking where it is perfectly legal that it offends me. I don't have to sit next to them on the beach. I don't even have to go to the same beach that they do. I don't drink. But I certainly don't think I have the right to go and sit in a bar and tell the drinkers around me that they offend me. My rights do not supersede someone else's, and vice versa.


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

I don't drink. But I certainly don't think I have the right to go and sit in a bar and tell the drinkers around me that they offend me

A ridiculous comparison. The person next to me drinking doesn't have any negative effects on my health. The person next to me smoking can cause cancer and other ailments for me.

It's not that it "offends" me. It can make me sick.

Not the same.


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

rob, the point was that you have just as might "right" to be at the beach in that particular spot, as the smoker has the "right" to smoke there. All I am saying is that sometimes "rights" clash and who's to say one person has more "rights" than another?


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

I heard you :) We have to weigh rights. Sometimes. Rather like Jill is saying. One right infringes upon another, or comparatively, when rights are "inconvenient". Infringes has more weight (smoking in closed in places, where I have less ability to obtain my right), while inconvenient has less weight (smoking outside and I can move down the beach or walk on the other side of the street).


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

Its illegal to smoke in public saloons. At American Legion and VFW posts about 50 of the people smoke there. No one ever complains but are some ones rights being denied here? Or can both perties express their rights equally


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

This odd digression reminds me of the old Steve Martin routine that sheds light perfectly on this (non-existent) "debate":

"Do you mind if I smoke?"

"Do you mind if I fart? It's one of my habits. They have a special section for me on airplanes now. I tried to quit once for about a year, but I gained a lot of weight. After sex I really like to light one up!".


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

Ohhh, that's a funny skit.


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

I find it odd you've interjected such an odd thought, scatological at that. The rest is a fairly reasonable progression. We've spoken of highly specific rights and now we're speaking of grey areas. Nothing odd about that. Bedrooms should be a highly protected area. Smoking not so much. Guns are another of that grey area, and while the constitution doesn't protect smoking rights or bedroom rights, the interpreation of the 2nd amendment is grey when it comes to regular citizens. The logical progression, indicating how judges reach their conclusions, is quite reasonable and is an extension of "whether in their view, a law prohibiting the use of contraception would be a violation of the Constitution...".

Huh? To each their own odd thought.


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

Whats gray, how are regular citizens? aren they ' the people'. the only gray area about people is when they become people, before birth or after.


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

We the poeple are not judges. Not in our wildest dreams. They're educated as to what laws mean, how the elements are to be intepreted, followed by years of praticing law, etc. Unless you think that all counts for nothing? The minute they put on that robe, they are we the people+education and experience.

What is gray? Under what circumstances people should be allowed to have guns, who can have them, the steps to be taken before being allowed to have them, the types of guns which can be owned...


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

rob333 wrote,

"morality and critical thinking make privacy a right of every American."

So we have to legislate morality now? Or were you saying that's not a moral that is held by all Americans? I would say I'm confused, but I'm not.

Your. Rights. End. At. My. Nose. period. No exceptions.

It's what this country was founded on. If someone doesn't like that tenet, then the USA probably shouldn't be their home.

Forgive me, but I got lost here...you seem to have quoted yourself, then responded in argument. Can you clarfy? Thanks.


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

I'm watching the documentary Makers and I see the Clarence Thomas - Anita Hill travesty, and here is Joe Biden asking questions at a hearing of the highest level.

A generation ago he was near the top of his profession. Something that is still happening today.

Boy, what a nincompoop that guy is, huh? Lying dead on the highway.

You can't make this stuff up. No one would buy that fiction as it would be too unbelievable.


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

I believe it was a preface as to why I wanted the question I asked. That which followed. So are we legislating morality now?


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

We have been legislating morality forever, from the lowest town councils to the august halls of Congress. Governments love to meddle and mess with mankind's morality.


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

I am disappointed to see that fancifowl, despite having made an argument regarding the 2nd Amendment based on a strict constructionist view of constitutional interpretation, will not permit his philosophy in that regard be explored.

Will any conservative discuss whether they believe, from their reading of the Constitution (not based on the Supreme Court's specific case history), that it would be unconstitutional for a state to make a law prohibiting the use of contraception in one's bedroom?


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

We have been legislating morality forever, ... love to meddle and mess with mankind's morality.

She's a witch! Burn her! She turned me into a newt!


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

With perfect teeth, no less


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

"Will any conservative discuss whether they believe, from their reading of the Constitution (not based on the Supreme Court's specific case history), that it would be unconstitutional for a state to make a law prohibiting the use of contraception in one's bedroom?"

Not only would it be unconstitutional, it would be foolish for states to pass and enact laws regarding contraception. It's clearly an issue with religious or moral roots and/or connotations, and not one based upon the safety or well being of the citizens.

I'm not conservative, as the term is used within the realm of politics... I would be considered left leaning or liberal, except for a few things I don't agree with. But the idea of a state, or the federal government for that matter, making laws that tell me what I can and can't do with regard to my own person, that have nothing to do with the general safety or well being of all citizens, would be quite the overstep of bounds for a democracy, and would be the work of a theocratic dictatorship.

It's contradictory to abolish the use of contraception while not wanting to provide the funding and resources that would be necessary, considering the results, should contraception be abolished.

Laws that truly do keep in mind the safety and well being of all citizens, providing for the equal rights of all, are wonderful... as long as everyone abides by those laws, or those laws are properly enforced. Otherwise, they're just meaningless words on paper.

As far as I understand the basics of our Constitution, it's the later Amendments that often clarify specifics...


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

jodik wrote,

"Will any conservative discuss whether they believe, from their reading of the Constitution (not based on the Supreme Court's specific case history), that it would be unconstitutional for a state to make a law prohibiting the use of contraception in one's bedroom?"

Not only would it be unconstitutional...

I don't take issue with your response, but what I'm specifically interested in is if (and why) a conservative would think that it would be unconstutitional (again, not based on the Supreme Court's opinion or on how other courts may have ruled, but on their own reading of the Constitution and their philosophy of constitutional interpretation).

Are any conservatives willing to discuss their views on constitutional interpretation?


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

Read the rest of my response... I think you might find what you're looking for... unless you're lookingfor a specifically Republican response; that, I cannot help you with. I just thought it might be nice to get A response... you know, to get things started...


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

I too gave a conservative response. Do you mean one whould find it "unconstituional"? Sorry, I use that term quite loosely. Because I find it constitutional in terms that say, stay out of my business. That is the most basic conservative tenet. The core.

Do you want someone who thinks all the decisions made have been a slippery slope?


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

jodik wrote,

Read the rest of my response... I think you might find what you're looking for... unless you're lookingfor a specifically Republican response

I am looking for responses from political conservatives, who tend to espouse a strict reading of the Constitution, a la fancifowl's explanation of why he views the 2nd Amendment as he does and why he seems to eschew re-reading of the text of the Constitution to add interpretations not present in the clear text. As you said,

I'm not conservative, as the term is used within the realm of politics... I would be considered left leaning or liberal, except for a few things I don't agree with.

I'm familiar with the views of left-leaning people on the matter of re-reading of the Constitution, not that your input is unimportant or unappreciated. But I would like to explore the positions of some political conservatives.

rob333 wrote,

I too gave a conservative response. Do you mean one whould find it "unconstituional"? Sorry, I use that term quite loosely. Because I find it constitutional in terms that say, stay out of my business. That is the most basic conservative tenet. The core.

Do you want someone who thinks all the decisions made have been a slippery slope?

I wrote a very specific reply to your first answer, but I don't see that you have addressed it. Here it is again:

So, you believe that rights that you consider important should be considered to be part of the Constitution even when they are not "'in the Constitution' per se."

You believe it is not just acceptable, but critical for our democracy, that judges re-read the Constitution to go beyond what is written in it to add interpretations.

Correct?

Just to be clear, I am soliciting your viewpoint on going beyond the literal text of the Constitution to add or shape rights.


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

  • Posted by RpR_ 3-4 (My Page) on
    Wed, Feb 27, 13 at 15:24

Posted by Factotem

"Will any conservative discuss whether they believe, from their reading of the Constitution (not based on the Supreme Court's specific case history), that it would be unconstitutional for a state to make a law prohibiting the use of contraception in one's bedroom?"---------------------------------That would first have to get past the States Constitution before it got to the Feds.

In Minn. Pawlenty was going to charge citizens a "fee", the Minn. Supreme Court said, you can call it what ever you wish, but it is still an illegal tax.


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

I see your question, but if you cannot understand what I have said several times already (privacy IS a constitutionally protected right), why say it again?

I think the problem is, once I say I am conservative, you automatically badger. I'm a round peg who cannot be pigeon-holed into your square. I also think same gender marriage is constitutionally protected right. Whoa. I can think and be conservative. We're not all socially regressive.


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

rob333 wrote,

I see your question, but if you cannot understand what I have said several times already (privacy IS a constitutionally protected right), why say it again?

I think the problem is, once I say I am conservative, you automatically badger. I'm a round peg who cannot be pigeon-holed into your square. I also think same gender marriage is constitutionally protected right. Whoa. I can think and be conservative. We're not all socially regressive.

You completely misunderstand. I'm not badgering at all, but you are answering a narrow question I have not asked, while not answering the general question about constitutional inerpretation that I have asked.

I understand that by your reading, privacy is a constitutionally-protected right. My question is, do you therefore believe that rights that you consider important should be considered to be part of the Constitution even when they are not "'in the Constitution' per se"?

That is, do you believe it is not just acceptable, but critical for our democracy, that judges re-read the Constitution to go beyond what is written in it to add interpretations?


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

No. If it's that important, it can become a new amendment if it can be ratified.


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

bill_vincent wrote,

No. If it's that important, it can become a new amendment if it can be ratified.

So you do not think that it would be unconstitutional (putting aside whether it would be smart or stupid, etc) for a state to prohibit the use of contraception in your bedroom, because there is no right to privacy articulated in the text of the Constitution. Correct?


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

Correct. In fact, I think I said that a few days ago, when this first came up.


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

Anthony Comstock, a postal inspector and leader in the purity movement, successfully lobbied for the passage of the 1873 Comstock Act, a federal law prohibiting mailing of "any article or thing designed or intended for the prevention of conception or procuring of abortion" as well as any form of contraceptive information. Many states also passed similar state laws (collectively known as the Comstock laws), sometimes extending the federal law by outlawing the use of contraceptives, as well as their distribution.

Here is a link that might be useful: wikipedia - good for many things


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

bill_vincent wrote,

Correct. In fact, I think I said that a few days ago, when this first came up.

OK, so you would have let the Connecticut law that prohibited the use of contraception stand, because in your view, there is no constitutionally-protected right to privacy.

In your view, would it be unconstutional for a state to pass a law segregating its public schools?


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

Okay-- back to Factoman. You're now twisting it to put words in my mouth. You started out by saying
(putting aside whether it would be smart or stupid, etc)
Now, all of the sudden it's up to me whether I'd "LET" the laws stand because I think it's "not unconstitutional". Apples and oranges, Factoman. I guess the others were right about answering your questions.


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

You keep dancing around the subjecct, trying to frame it in such a way to put me and any other conservatives who answer you in the worst possible light. Let me frame it FOR you. it's no secret in here that I'm very much pro life (anti choice, whatever moniker you wish to hang on it). This is where many conservatives and I part company, though. I CAN NOT SEE, being pro life, and anti contraception. To me, that's absolutely ludicrous.


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

bill_vincent wrote,

Okay-- back to Factoman. You're now twisting it to put words in my mouth. You started out by saying
(putting aside whether it would be smart or stupid, etc)
Now, all of the sudden it's up to me whether I'd "LET" the laws stand because I think it's "not unconstitutional". Apples and oranges, Factoman. I guess the others were right about answering your questions.

I have no idea what you are talking about. I asked,

So you do not think that it would be unconstitutional (putting aside whether it would be smart or stupid, etc) for a state to prohibit the use of contraception in your bedroom, because there is no right to privacy articulated in the text of the Constitution. Correct?

...to which you replied,

Correct. In fact, I think I said that a few days ago, when this first came up.

This is very simple. You do not think a law that prohibits contraception, such as the law in Connecticut that did just that, should be overturned on Constitutional grounds, because you don't think such a law is unconstitutional, because there is no right to privacy written into the Constitution. That's what you have stated. I have no idea what the "apples and oranges" reference means. You have already said there's no constitutionally-protected right to privacy in this country, in your opinion.

Having established your position on the absence of a right to privacy in the Constitution, I am now asking about a Constitutional right for students to attend integrated schools. Do you think it would unconstitutional for a state to set up a segregated public school system?


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

I said I don't believe there is any constitutional law which would, right now, say the Ct law is unconstitutional. That has nothing Nada ZIPPITY DO DAH with what I think should or shouldn't be. Like I said, apples and oranges. Twist away, factoman. You're not turning this one around.

As for the rest, I don't want to play any more, so I guess you may as well play with yourself. Done with this thread.


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

bill_vincent wrote,

I said I don't believe there is any constitutional law which would, right now, say the Ct law is unconstitutional. That has nothing Nada ZIPPITY DO DAH with what I think should or shouldn't be. Like I said, apples and oranges. Twist away, factoman. You're not turning this one around.
As for the rest, I don't want to play any more, so I guess you may as well play with yourself. Done with this thread.

I never asked what you think should or shouldn't be. If you read my posts with care, you will see that; a quote to the contrary would be appreciated, but you won't find one. I'm not interested in your opinion of whether a law is a dumb law or a good law. All I'm interested in is whether you think certain laws violate the Constitution, in your view of how the Constitution should be used to make those determinations. This is very simple.

We have no dispute. I understand that in your view, there is no right to privacy in the Constitution. I also understand that therefore a law which prohibits the use of contraception would not violate the Constitution, in your view. We have moved past that, and I am now exploring another question about constitutional rights. I don't understand why you refuse to state your position on this.

The question is simple. In your view, would it violate the Constitution for a state to set up a segregated public school system?


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

Bill, I think I have a question now. It might even finally get facto to undertstand why I won't budge from what I've said.

How can you reconcile privacy with abortions, contraceptives, etc. I rather see my beliefs as being, let the person do the "sin" on their own. They will have to answer for it. I only want to step in in extraordinary circumstances. I see contraceptives as not being extraordinary. Avoidance of life is not the same as taking a life. That's how I can reconcile it.


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

I don't understand why you refuse to state your position on this.

Yes you do. You realize VERY well, because it's your target. You start out with a specific, like say, do you believe it to be unconstitutional to not be able to yell fire in a crowded theater, and when I say no, it then becomes a generality-- so you don't believe in free speech? It's a common lawyer's twist, and one of the reasons why, when you first started posting, I asked if you were a lawyer.
So, no, I won't answer any more of your questions.


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

rob333 wrote,

Bill, I think I have a question now. It might even finally get facto to undertstand why I won't budge from what I've said.

How can you reconcile privacy with abortions, contraceptives, etc. I rather see my beliefs as being, let the person do the "sin" on their own. They will have to answer for it. I only want to step in in extraordinary circumstances. I see contraceptives as not being extraordinary. Avoidance of life is not the same as taking a life. That's how I can reconcile it.

I don't know what you are responding to. I have not asked you to "budge from what you've said." I have not asked you how you reconcile anything.

I understand that in your view, there is a constitutionally-protected right to privacy, though it is not written in the Constitution. My question is, do you therefore believe that rights that you consider important should be considered to be part of the Constitution even when they are not "'in the Constitution' per se"?

That is, do you believe it is not just acceptable, but critical for our democracy, that judges re-read the Constitution to go beyond what is written in it to add interpretations, as they have done with the right to privacy -- a right added by the Supreme Court via a re-reading that you support?

I'm not asking if you agree with every such re-reading done by the courts; I'm only asking if you support the principle of re-reading the Constitution to shape rights, as you have said you do with respect to the right to privacy.


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

facto, you're repeating yourself. I got it. You're not hearing me. Just because they don't use the actual word privacy, doesn't mean they weren't protecting that right (how else can you have freedom of religion, or not to speak against yourself in court, or have to prove you have enough property to vote...?). It's not even an extension of the amendments. It is what much of document is about.

Just let Bill answer the question I've asked and leave me alone. I've even given you more in my question to him. You're looking for something to twist (my word was badger, and now Bill's saying it too), but there isn't anything you can twist, so you keep repeating yourself.


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

bill_vincent wrote,

"I don't understand why you refuse to state your position on this."

Yes you do. You realize VERY well, because it's your target. You start out with a specific, like say, do you believe it to be unconstitutional to not be able to yell fire in a crowded theater, and when I say no, it then becomes a generality-- so you don't believe in free speech? It's a common lawyer's twist, and one of the reasons why, when you first started posting, I asked if you were a lawyer.
So, no, I won't answer any more of your questions.

The problem with your false claim here is that it doesn't match reality. I haven't taken a narrow answer you've given and then twisted it into a general claim that I attribute to you, as the clear words in my posts prove, and as you will be unable to disprove. If I took a specific example and unjustifiably generalized your position based on that one example, all you have to do is point it out. But you haven't -- because I haven't. In fact, I have been very careful to ask you what your position is, so you could state it; I haven't declared your positions without asking you.

If I have attributed a position to you that you do not hold, be an adult and call me on the specifics, don't run out of the room in fear, which is what it looks like you are doing.

I am asking you questions. If you are afraid of your own answers, figure out why; don't shift blame to me for something you are afraid to express. Not afraid to say what you think? Then why are you running away?

We have already successfully established one point, and you have expressed no problem with that: you do not believe there is a right to privacy in the Constutution. Therefore, a state law, like the one Connecticut imposed, that prohibits the use of contraception would not be unconstitutional, in your view. That is what you have said. I have not "twisted" anything, and you have been, and will be, unable to show otherwise. Do you disagree with anything I've said so far? Do you want to change or retract anything you said earlier? Go ahead. Don't just turn tail and run.

I am asking you a very simple question, and I am not answering it for you; your own words will represent your position:

In your view, would it violate the Constitution as you read it for a state to set up a segregated public school system?

I do not understand how you could be so fearful of your own words that you will refuse to answer that question.


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

Fearful is the last adjective anyone would call me. I'm so sorry you cannot reason out what is being presented to you.


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

rob333 wrote,

facto, you're repeating yourself. I got it. You're not hearing me. Just because they don't use the actual word privacy, doesn't mean they weren't protecting that right (how else can you have freedom of religion, or not to speak against yourself in court, or have to prove you have enough property to vote...?). It's not even an extension of the amendments. It is what much of document is about.

I don't know what you mean, "I got it." I didn't ask you to get anything. I asked you to agree or disagree with a statement of principle regarding constitutional interpretation, but for some reason you are evading that question. I don't know why you are going on now about an explanation for your position on the finding of a right to privacy in the Constitution; I never contested your position on that, so why are you going off on a tangent to defend something I haven't even challenged?

You agreed with the Supreme Court's finding a right to privacy in the Constitution many years after it was written, when no such right had previously been read into the text. I expressed no judgment of your position. All I asked was whether you believe, therefore, as a general principle, it is not just acceptable, but critical for our democracy, that judges re-read the Constitution to go beyond what is written in it to add interpretations, as they did with the right to privacy -- a right added by the Supreme Court relatively recently via a re-reading that you support? I'm asking if you support the principle of re-reading the Constitution to shape rights, as you have said you do with respect to the right to privacy. That is a very simple, direct question. What is so frightening about answering it?

You're looking for something to twist (my word was badger, and now Bill's saying it too), but there isn't anything you can twist, so you keep repeating yourself.

You're simply wrong, and you cannot provide a shred of evidence for your false claim. I'm not looking for anything other than your views, but you seem increasingly fearful of stating them, for reasons known only to you. I keep repeating my question because you refuse to answer it. You seem to be afraid of your own words, which baffles me.

I am interested in conservatives' views on constitutional interpretation. Fancifowl indicated he did not believe in going beyond the written text when it came to the 2nd Amendment, but he refused to discuss his position more generally so he has offered no principles to support his narrowly-stated position. Bill has also stated that he does not think the Constitution protects rights that are not clearly written into it, such as a right to privacy; he believes that if such modifications to the Constitution are important, it should be amended accordingly, but then he refused to state his position on the second example I gave regarding segregated schools, so he will not defend his stance on constitutional interpretation for some reason that he will not explain. You have stated that rights can be added to the Constitution via re-reading and interpreting the document, as with the right to privacy, but now you refuse to endorse the underlying principle even as you support one of the clearest examples of it in action, and again, I have no idea why you are running away from the question.

So the three conservatives who have participated in this discussion have three different viewpoints, but the one thing they have in common is that even though I have not attacked anyone, nor put words in anyone's mouth as I prefer they speak for themselves, you all beaome evasive and eventually fled when the issue is discussed in depth.

Why is that? What, specifically are you three afraid of? None of you strikes me as being a fearful person.


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

rob333 wrote,

Fearful is the last adjective anyone would call me. I'm so sorry you cannot reason out what is being presented to you.

Why, then, won't you simply answer this question?

Do you believe that as a general principle, it is not just acceptable, but critical for our democracy, that judges re-read the Constitution to go beyond what is written in it to add interpretations, as they did with the right to privacy -- a right added by the Supreme Court relatively recently via a re-reading that you support? I'm asking if you support the principle of re-reading the Constitution to shape rights, as you have said you do with respect to the right to privacy.

Such a simple question. Why are you afraid to answer it?


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

I'm not a conservative, but I think some of the problem is with the way you are phrasing the questions, Facto--such as can rights "be added to the Constitution via re-reading and interpreting the document, as with the right to privacy.

Phrased that way, I'd probably be inclined to say "no."

But if you phrased it more like this--can rights be inferred, even when not directly stated, from evidence in the Constitution, a number of Constitutional premises depending on the existence of an unstated right (like the right to privacy) inherent in the directly stated rights?--then I probably would say "yes."

My question, as stated above, is a different question than the one you have been asking our conservative posters, however. I would suggest that they find your phrasing more "confusing" than anything else--which is why they are eyeing you suspiciously, wondering what you are up to. Your way of phrasing the question has a bit of the "have you stopped beating your wife yet" type of question.

Not that the topic is not worth exploring. It is a very important topic--but most of us don't consider ourselves constitutional experts--which is also part of the problem since not even the experts agree.

My apologies if I'm repeating what someone else said earlier. I've been gone for a number of days and haven't caught up on the current conversation here yet. : )

Kate


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

I'm not confused. Just for the record. I appreciate the effort to try to smooth things. I just won't play their way. I am entitled to voice my opinion my way. And it bugs them.


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

Reject my offering, if you will (grin)--but I still find the discussion a bit confusing, phrased as it has been above. I thought that perhaps you also shared my sense of the phrasing somewhat muddling up the issue.

Kate


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

I do share that part! It is muddled, and why I refuse to answer it as is.


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

rob333 wrote,

I'm not confused. Just for the record. I appreciate the effort to try to smooth things. I just won't play their way. I am entitled to voice my opinion my way. And it bugs them.

I don't understand the "and it bugs them." What does your guess about how I feel about your evasions have to do with the issue of constitutional interpretation?

Of course you are "entitled" to voice your opinion your way. What's so strange is that you are refusing to voice your opinion at all on the principle of reading rights into the Constitution that are not explicitly written there.

You have already stated that you believe a right to privacy is in the Constitution, even though it is not in there per se. You agree with the Supreme Court's inferring that right, and you believe it is a very important right for Americans to have. I am asking if you believe that as a general principle, it is not just acceptable, but critical for our democracy, that judges re-read the Constitution to go beyond what is written in it to add interpretations, as they did with the right to privacy -- a right added by the Supreme Court relatively recently via a re-reading that you support? I'm asking if you support the principle of re-reading the Constitution to shape rights, as you have said you do with respect to the right to privacy.

Is this question somehow unclear?


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

I am entitled to voice my opinion my way. And it bugs them.

Rob - why do you say this? Where did facto indicate it bugged him that you voiced your opinion? The way I see it, you voiced your opinion on a specific. Facto then asked if your opinion on that specific also applies generally?

What is wrong with asking that? Is it the way it was asked as Kate said?

I am interested in this topic. I wish people would answer the question. Or, if the way the question is asked is the problem, then explain that, and maybe facto (or someone else) can rephrase in a way more acceptable?

With all due respect to all parties, this conversation reminds me of a parent trying to get an answer from a child who is to doing everything they can to not answer the question asked. I imagine a lot of avoided eye contact in the answers being given.


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

Do I find interpretation of the document a citical process? Yes. We have given and expect the Supreme Court (regadless of the makeup. Some times it is leans more right, sometimes more left) to do this job. They are not going beyond anything as I see it. They are staying true to the intention of what was written, only applying it in modern terms. The theory behind the Court is that once they are "lifers", they will be able to step outside of hte "sway" of ordinary argument. They have that added experience and knowledge from education. Is the theory successful? For the most part. Best process there is and I wouldn't change it. It self-corrects when it gets off course. I do worry they'll do something really awful, but so far, not undoable.

Jill-the persistent repetition in asking me the same thing.

Except, I have answered it. I'm no child and the answer is there. Maybe, with all due respect, it's a language barrier. If the question had been given in person, at say a cocktail party, I'm pretty sure I would've smiled graciously and just gone on to the next conversation. Not all of us converse in the same way. I absolutely would be looking him in the eye. Not all eyes or ears see or hear the same way. It's not that I don't appreciate the discussion or even who facto is, we're not friends with everyone in life, it's that I will not be cowed into doing it anyone's way. I may swing back at some point in my life, but for now, I put my foot down. Sometimes.


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

rob333 wrote,


Jill-the persistent repetition in asking me the same thing.

Except, I have answered it. I'm no child and the answer is there.

Not true. You have never directly answered the question I asked; you have evaded it over and over again. The question is quite open; you can answer it with a flat "yes" or "no", or with a qualified answer ("no, except for the following types of rights"), or whatever. But you refuse to give a direct answer. That's why I repeat the question -- because you are extremely evasive. if you are worried about some consequence of your giving an honest, direct answer to the question, what consequence is it that you fear? If you are not afraid of any consequence of replying honestly and directly, why won't you do so?


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

Jill-the persistent repetition in asking me the same thing.

Except, I have answered it.

Please point me to the post where you answered it. The answer to the general question, not the specific question about privacy. I'm not trying to be obnoxious. I would just really like to know your answer and I didn't see it.


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

Question: "a law prohibiting the use of contraception would be a violation of the Constitution"

A double negative. Which equals a positive. Does it or does it not?

Bill's comment after my question to him, is revealing this (and gives a nod to the witch hunt this is).

Kate tried to show the question could have been asked differently, did she or did she not?

So I agreed in the positive, rather than answer the negative. Contraceptives are a protected right due to privacy which is more than implied, it's a right the Framers wanted to protect and did so many times and in many ways in the Constitution. And which the Supreme Court upholds.

I hope this helps Jill.


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

I don't think that is a double negative.

A law that prohibits something could be a violation of a right. So then I hope that law would be thrown out.


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

Sorry, I really don't understand your post.

Maybe I also am not making myself clear.

Here is the question I was hoping to see your answer on:

Do you believe that as a general principle, it is not just acceptable, but critical for our democracy, that judges re-read the Constitution to go beyond what is written in it to add interpretations, as they did with the right to privacy?

Oh, are you saying that you don't think the SCOTUS interpreted the constitution when they ruled on right to privacy? That the constitution says that? You say:
Contraceptives are a protected right due to privacy which is more than implied

So, you don't think it was an interpretation? Sorry if I'm being dense!


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

I am sorry, it sounded like you wanted me to point you to where I answered the original question.

The answer to that question (which factotoem overlooked? avoided? because they never probed further or acknowledged it), is located:

at Feb 28, 13 at 13:59, first paragraph.


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

Oh, OK, yes, I see it:
Do I find interpretation of the document a citical process? Yes.

I will point out that that I think that is the first time you answered that question. It had been asked several times. In the same post you say:
Except, I have answered it.

Well, you answered it in that post, but not before.

Thanks, Rob.


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

Boy! I hope uncle Joe can rest now!!


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

rob333 wrote,

Question: "a law prohibiting the use of contraception would be a violation of the Constitution"

A double negative. Which equals a positive. Does it or does it not?

The statement stands on its own and is crystal-clear. Indeed, you have already agreed with it, so I'm not even sure why you bring it up now. Does a law prohibiting contraception violate the Constitution? It does, according to both the Supreme Court and your own view of the Constitution. What's the issue with the phrasing of the question?

Contraceptives are a protected right due to privacy which is more than implied, it's a right the Framers wanted to protect and did so many times and in many ways in the Constitution.

The right to privacy "is not 'in the constitution' per se." It was inferred by the Court in the penumbras of and emanations from other constitutional protections, but as you have already stated, the right to privacy is not in the Constitution per se, as contrasted with certain other rights which are explicit.

it sounded like you wanted me to point you to where I answered the original question.

The answer to that question (which factotoem overlooked? avoided? because they never probed further or acknowledged it), is located:

at Feb 28, 13 at 13:59, first paragraph.

That's the same post where you wrote,

Except, I have answered it. I'm no child and the answer is there. Maybe, with all due respect, it's a language barrier.

So by your own reckoning, you had not answered the question in a previous post, but you said "I have answered it."

To move the discussion forward, I am going to re-state the question, and then apply your answer in responsive terms. Please let me know if you agree with the re-stating, and then I can proceed with a follow-up:

Q: Do you believe that as a general principle, it is not just acceptable, but critical for our democracy, that judges re-read the Constitution to go beyond what is written in it to add interpretations, as they did with the right to privacy?

A: Yes. I find interpretation of the document a critical process. We have given and expect the Supreme Court to do this job. However, they are not going beyond anything as I see it. They are staying true to the intention of what was written, only applying it in modern terms.

Does that comport accurately with your view?


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

I do wish you would toss out the language about "add ons" and "going beyond"-- and "not in" the Constitution. That language muddles the discussion. An "inferred" right (based on what is IN the Constitution--by which I mean, it is "directly stated") in NOT an "add on." It is IN the Constitution--BY INFERENCE.

Explaining the inference and the directly stated basis for it in the Constitution is NOT a case of "going beyond" the Constitution. It is a case of drawing out and exposing what is already there BY IMPLICATION.

As you phrase these issues, I'd probably have to answer NO--when I actually mean YES to the idea, but not to the way it is phrased--since the phrasing stands the idea on its head!

Impossible discussion as long as you refuse to rephrase, for clarity's sake, the terms used.

Kate


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

Kate, you sometimes make a lot of sense!


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

Impossible discussion as long as you refuse to rephrase, for clarity's sake, the terms used.

Kate, that's the whole idea, and the reason why he's directing it ONLY at conservatives.


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

dublinbay wrote,

I do wish you would toss out the language about "add ons" and "going beyond"-- and "not in" the Constitution. That language muddles the discussion. An "inferred" right (based on what is IN the Constitution--by which I mean, it is "directly stated") in NOT an "add on." It is IN the Constitution--BY INFERENCE.

Explaining the inference and the directly stated basis for it in the Constitution is NOT a case of "going beyond" the Constitution. It is a case of drawing out and exposing what is already there BY IMPLICATION.

As you phrase these issues, I'd probably have to answer NO--when I actually mean YES to the idea, but not to the way it is phrased--since the phrasing stands the idea on its head!

Impossible discussion as long as you refuse to rephrase, for clarity's sake, the terms used.

You put "add ons" in quotes, but I never used that phrase, so your criticism on that point is without foundation. You also write "'going beyond' the Constitution", which, again, is another phrase I never used (I discussed "going beyond the literal text, and "go[ing] beyond what is written in it," which are entirely different), so that criticism, too, is baseless. As to the phrase, "'not in the Constitution," rob333 crafted that formulation (along with "not outlined in the Constitution"), so you should take up your complaint about that phrasing with rob333.

So all your objections about unclear phrasing are inapplicable to what I have written.

Rights that are explicit are, by definition, not susceptible to opinions about their existence by inference. Rights that are not explicit are added over time by inference, which is a subjective process. Once added, they can then be invoked, but they do not enjoy the same permanence as do explicit rights, as they can be eliminated through judicial action.

Some, like fancifowl, do not seem to approve of the idea of re-reading the Constitution to shape existing rights or add rights by inference. People who hold that view are sometimes termed strict constructionists. I would like to have more detail on fancifowl's views, but he refuses to discuss them. Bill_vincent also rejects the reading in of implicit rights, and does not believe that the Constitution contains a right to privacy, as it is not in the explicit wording of the document. In his view, a law forbidding the sales of contraception would not be unconstitutional, however wrongheaded it might be. His stance is that if new rights are important, they should be added explicitly to the Constitution through the amendment process. So we have a diversity of opinion. I have asked Bill whether it would be unconstitutional by his reading of that document for a state to set up a segregated public school system, but he refuses to answer.

This post was edited by Factotem on Fri, Mar 1, 13 at 12:23


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

bill_vincent wrote,

Kate, that's the whole idea, and the reason why he's directing it ONLY at conservatives.

False. I am interested in conservatives' view on the application of the Constitution because I already understand the position of those on the left.

What consequence are you so worried about if you honestly answer my question about segregated schools?


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

Facto, I would love to engage you.
but, you must choose your weapon. Will it be a pistol, or a blade? I am much more capable with these weapons than my typewriter. If you would only name your station. I would be obliged to be present.


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

Posted by fancifowl
"Facto, I would love to engage you.
but, you must choose your weapon. Will it be a pistol, or a blade? I am much more capable with these weapons than my typewriter. If you would only name your station. I would be obliged to be present."-----------------------He is trolling.
Let him troll, as he seems to have nothing to add as far as his opinion goes on any matter, just do not feed the trolls.


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

Facto--I took all the language that bothers me directly from your posts. My point is that, like you, I believe in "implicit rights" like the right to privacy but I believe implicit rights are IN the Constitution. The way you phrase your position --using language about "add" ons and "going beyond"--NO, I cannot agree with that language. You are forcing me to agree with a position as you phrase it--which I can't. I think the language of addition and going beyond is dangerous to the right of privacy, for instance, -- creating a basis for the Supreme Court to overthrow rulings based on that implicit right that is IN the Constitution," as far as I am concerned.

Your idea that the right to privacy is somehow extraneous to the Constitution is NOT the typical liberal reading of the Constitution. You are, in fact, with your language, arguing the position of the anti-abortion rights people who claim that freedom of reproductive choice cannot be a constitutionally supported because there is no right to privacy IN the Constitution--by which they mean that it is not directly stated. To them, inferred rights are always outside the Constitution and therefore not legitimate--they are "made up" by the Justices who go beyond the limitations of the Constitution.

It just doesn't make sense to use anti-choice language and arguments to argue FOR pro-choice rulings, to give a specific example. Dissonance! And fodder for the choice opponents to nullify pro-choice!

Have you no political sense?

Kate


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

dublinbay wrote,

Facto--I took all the language that bothers me directly from your posts.

Untrue. I am disappointed you have not read my posts with care.

Let's examine each phrase to which you objected:

add ons: I never used the term "add ons" or "add on". Please review my posts and report your findings.

going beyond the Constitution: I never used the phrase "going beyond the Constitution." Please review my posts and report your findings.

not in the Constitution: rob333 used this formulation. Please direct your criticism to rob333.

Surely you don't expect to have a sincere, productive discussion if you are going to complain about things I have not written.


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

dublinbay wrote,

Facto--I took all the language that bothers me directly from your posts.

See above. I did not offer any of the language that you claim I used.

My point is that, like you, I believe in "implicit rights" like the right to privacy...

What do you mean, "like you"? I have expressed no opinion. If I have made a statement of opinion, please cite it.

...but I believe implicit rights are IN the Constitution. The way you phrase your position --using language about "add" ons and "going beyond"--NO, I cannot agree with that language.

What position statement are you referring to? I have not stated a position. A citation would be appreciated.

You are forcing me to agree with a position as you phrase it--which I can't.

I m not forcing you to do anything. What do you mean?

I think the language of addition and going beyond is dangerous to the right of privacy,

Once again, I never referred to rights as "going beyond the Constitution." I would appreciate a retraction.

Your idea that the right to privacy is somehow extraneous to the Constitution is NOT the typical liberal reading of the Constitution.

Please stop making positions up and attributing them to me. I have stated no such "idea". Please post a citation to the contrary or issue a correction.

You are, in fact, with your language, arguing the position of the anti-abortion rights people who claim that freedom of reproductive choice cannot be a constitutionally supported because there is no right to privacy IN the Constitution--by which they mean that it is not directly stated.

And, yet again, you attribute to me statements I have not made. Please cite this supposed argument I have made, or retract your claim.

It just doesn't make sense to use anti-choice language and arguments to argue FOR pro-choice rulings, to give a specific example. Dissonance! And fodder for the choice opponents to nullify pro-choice!

Have you no political sense?

For the last time, I haven't argued for or against any rulings. I am very disappointed by your failure to actually read my posts with care. I again must ask you to provide a citation supporting this argument I have supposedly made -- or issue a retraction. It is extremely sloppy (at best) to attribute both specific language and positions to me when I have written neither. Obviously, a productive discussion cannot ensue if you insist on doing this repeatedly.

This post was edited by Factotem on Fri, Mar 1, 13 at 21:20


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

fancifowl wrote,

Facto, I would love to engage you.
but, you must choose your weapon. Will it be a pistol, or a blade? I am much more capable with these weapons than my typewriter. If you would only name your station. I would be obliged to be present.

Well, if you are unprepared to engage with words, why make a thrust in an argument and then flee the field?

As far as physically engaging, I would select the blade, as I was an alternate for the US National Fencing Championships (weapon of choice was foil).


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

facto, I don't know what in the world you are talking about. But I assure you my reading skills are fine. In fact, here is one of your many sentences I based my posts about your wording on.

I am asking if you believe that as a general principle, it is not just acceptable, but critical for our democracy, that judges re-read the Constitution to go beyond what is written in it to add interpretations, as they did with the right to privacy -- a right added by the Supreme Court relatively recently via a re-reading that you support?

I am not going to go back and argue with you about which words were used in which post--go back and read them yourself if you don't believe me. I selected words you actually used in your posts at least several times.

My point about your language still stands. You have not addressed it.

And I repeat--I am not a conservative (they dispise me, in fact), but your language choices in this case would certainly provide fuel for their position about the invalidity of reading privacy rights in the Constitution--which is to say, it would wipe out any laws that depended on the defunct constitutional right to privacy that would result.

I'm done with this thread. Pointless discussion -- of what should be, under other conditions, a very worthwhile topic.

Kate


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

Dublinbay wrote,

facto, I don't know what in the world you are talking about. But I assure you my reading skills are fine. In fact, here is one of your many sentences I based my posts about your wording on.

"I am asking if you believe that as a general principle, it is not just acceptable, but critical for our democracy, that judges re-read the Constitution to go beyond what is written in it to add interpretations, as they did with the right to privacy -- a right added by the Supreme Court relatively recently via a re-reading that you support?"

The quote you provide proves that you were wrong, and that I was correct. You previously claimed I wrote that the inferring of rights was "going beyond the Constitution", but the quote you now offer as proof nowhere contains that phrase. In fact, it says something quite different -- it explicitly refers to going beyond what is written when interpreting the Constitution. This is not a matters of opinion; anyone can compare the quotes you claimed I wrote with what I actually wrote.

You also had claimed that I used the phrase "add ons" when discussing rights found by the Supreme Court through interpretation. The quote you offer now as proof nowhere contains that phrase. Your claim was false. Again, this is trivially proven by simply reading the text of the posts.

You also claimed I characterized the right to privacy as "not in the Constitution." As I have explained repeatedly, that claim is false; that was rob333's characterization, and I see you make no effort to substantiate your claim now, so I will take that as an implicit retraction.

If you think offering a passage that does not contain the phrases you claimed I used is proof that I used them, then I indeed conclude there is a crippling deficit in your capacity to process written text. Why you think that you can make up quotes and attribute them to others, then offer a citation that fails to support your claim, is baffling to me. But at least all the posts are visible so the truth is easily determined.

You also had attributed to me opinions and positions I did not express. I would appreciate your retraction so there is no misunderstanding.

This post was edited by Factotem on Fri, Mar 1, 13 at 21:15


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

Oh boy! I think you'd whup me with the foil! I would have to bring my EK Commando fighting blade. Touche!


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

fancifowl wrote,

Oh boy! I think you'd whup me with the foil! I would have to bring my EK Commando fighting blade. Touche!

I should be able to hold you off with my longer weapon, but just in case I might opt for the sabre for some slashing action.


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

I should be able to hold you off with my longer weapon, but just in case I might opt for the sabre for some slashing action.

What is this-- sword envy?


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

Joe BIden should be proud-- someone took his advice. Not with a good ending.

Here is a link that might be useful: Don't know who's worse-- Biden or the cop


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

bill_vincent wrote,

Joe BIden should be proud-- someone took his advice. Not with a good ending.

Joe Biden advised being uncooperative with police and pointing a shotgun at them when they stop you as you're walking across your yard late at night carrying the weapon?


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

He said to step outside and fire a warning shot. As for the version you're portraying, it's very much in question at this time.


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

bill_vincent wrote,

He said to step outside and fire a warning shot. As for the version you're portraying, it's very much in question at this time.

What version are you portraying?


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

Just what's been accepted as fact so far. She did as suggested-- stepped outside, fired a warning shot, and before all was said and done, ended up dead, shot by police. Not sure WHY the cop shot at this point-- whether it was as he said, that an 83 year old woman was belligerent and pointed the weapon at him (even though she didn't try to shoot the intruder), or he made a mistake, after hearing that a shot had been fired, and seeing her with the weapon and shooting her without giving her the chance to explain herself.

One way or the other, I've only portrayed what's agreed on as fact so far. That's what you look for, right?


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

bill_vincent wrote,

Just what's been accepted as fact so far. She did as suggested-- stepped outside, fired a warning shot, and before all was said and done, ended up dead, shot by police. Not sure WHY the cop shot at this point-- whether it was as he said, that an 83 year old woman was belligerent and pointed the weapon at him (even though she didn't try to shoot the intruder), or he made a mistake, after hearing that a shot had been fired, and seeing her with the weapon and shooting her without giving her the chance to explain herself.
One way or the other, I've only portrayed what's agreed on as fact so far. That's what you look for, right?

Good, so you have no basis to assert any causal link between the fact that the woman allegedly fired a warning shot and the fact that she's dead. You had implied that there was a causal connection between those two events. Thanks for the clarification.


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

There's also no proof that there isn't a link, and it's more probably from what's said in the article than not. I WILL be curious to see how this shakes out, and you can bet if the woman's children are right, Uncle Joe's gonna have hell to pay. Even moreso than that cop.


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

That happened September 25, 2012, long before Biden said anything.

Your link does not have dates, which makes it rather misleading.

google "83 yr old woman shot by police"


 o
RE: "Uncle Joe" continued

bill_vincent wrote,

There's also no proof that there isn't a link

Thank you for setting forth the foundation upon which you base your accusations. I appreciate the revelation of the logic you employ.


 o Post a Follow-Up

Please Note: This thread has reached the upper limit for the number follow-ups allowed (150). If you would like to continue this discussion, please begin a new thread using the form on the main forum page.


Return to the Hot Topics Forum

Information about Posting

  • You must be logged in to post a message. Once you are logged in, a posting window will appear at the bottom of the messages. If you are not a member, please register for an account.
  • Posting is a two-step process. Once you have composed your message, you will be taken to the preview page. You will then have a chance to review your post, make changes and upload photos.
  • After posting your message, you may need to refresh the forum page in order to see it.
  • Before posting copyrighted material, please read about Copyright and Fair Use.
  • We have a strict no-advertising policy!
  • If you would like to practice posting or uploading photos, please visit our Test forum.
  • If you need assistance, please Contact Us and we will be happy to help.


Learn more about in-text links on this page here