AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Ican wrote:

OBAMA IS A CRIMINAL! HE MUST BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THESE CRIMES BEFORE HE DESTROYS OUR CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC.

(1) Obama is transfering wealth from those who have lawfully earned it to those who have not lawfully earned it.
(2) Obama is trying to deny corporate bond holders of bankrupt corporations their full equity in those bonds, BEFORE distributing corporate assets to any other corporate persons including employees.
(3) Obama is refusing to allow many corporate receivers of federal loans to pay back those loans before he permits them to.
(4) Obama is forcing selected car dealers to close their businesses.
Quote:

Are "we more disposed to suffer, while [Obama's] CRIMES are sufferable, than to RECTIFY OUR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT by removing Obama from office, while the cost to accomplish that objective remains relatively low?

Joe the Jag wrote:

Why the distinction? The second amendment doesn't say "firearms," it says "arms." How can you justify a distinction given the text of the amendment?

Joe the Jag wrote:

Yeah, MACs are easy to spot. They're the ones who drive on government-funded roads, send their kids to public schools, check out Ann Coulter books from public libraries and read them on public beaches, take federally tested pharmaceuticals and eat federally inspected food, take trips from government-funded airports to national parks, patriotically watch the government-sponsored Fourth of July fireworks displays, complain that the government doesn't interfere enough in the lives of women and gays, and dream of a retirement where they get Medicare and Social Security, all the while bitching about how large and intrusive the government has become.

He is , of course, wrong and as stupid as usual.

Yeah, left wing Communists like Joe the Jag are easy to spot. They are the ones who use Government Airplanes, send their kids to Sarah Sidwell, check out Al Franken books from public libraries, read them in cocaine houses, take federally inspected Marijuana, take trips to Europe on the government's time for Fact finding missions, watch scumbag rappers, complain that the government doesn't give lazy minorities enough welfare, and demand more and more free money from the people who work hard to earn it, all the while bitching about the salaries earned by hard working doctors and nurses.

Joe the Jag wrote:

Why the distinction? The second amendment doesn't say "firearms," it says "arms." How can you justify a distinction given the text of the amendment?


Jope the Jag says he is a lawyer. If he is, he graduated last in his class at one of the worst law schools in the country.

Note:

Joe the Jag is, of course, in addition to being a fake lawyer( see my posts where I showed he knows Nothing about Law Schools and gives people who asked him in all innocence for help, advice that was not worth a ****, NOW gives a moron's interpretation of the second amendment.

Note what the excrementious Joe the Jag wrote:


No, I'm quite sure you don't.

Frankly, I'd be shocked if any self-styled conservative actually disagreed, in practice, with the notion that the constitution is a "living document." Perhaps there are a few cranks and crackpots out there who think that the constitution should be frozen in the late eighteenth century, but then that's why they're considered to be cranks and crackpots.

But, as a test, just ask your conservative friends the following:

--Should the definition of "arms" in the second amendment be confined solely to weapons as they existed in 1791?
--Should television and radio broadcasters enjoy the same freedoms as the "press" under the first amendment?
--Should conversations be protected from warrantless electronic eavesdropping under the fourth amendment?
--Would imposition of the death penalty for theft violate the "cruel and unusual" provisions of the eighth amendment?

In addressing these and other questions, it's simply amazing to discover just how much conservatives really believe in the "living constitution" approach to constitutional interpretation.

****************************************************************
Take Joe the Jag's first two lines. The ass sets up the question so that it conforms to his prejudices. The jerk does not know how the word "arms" has been used. Note below:

To Bear Arms

"Bearing arms," throughout the 18th century, most likely meant to serve as a soldier or to fight (including bearing arms against another man in individual self-defense). Where the term "bear arms" appears, itself, without further modifiers it did not infer a broader meaning such as hunting or the mere carrying or wearing of arms.

For example, Roger Sherman, during House consideration of a militia bill (1790) refers to bearing arms as an individual right of self-defense (against other individuals) as well as a right belonging to the states:

[C]onceived it to be the privilege of every citizen, and one of his most essential rights, to bear arms, and to resist every attack upon his liberty or property, by whomsoever made. The particular states, like private citizens, have a right to be armed, and to defend, by force of arms, their rights, when invaded.
14 Debates in the House of Representatives, ed. Linda Grand De Pauw. (Balt., Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1972), 92-3.
Thus the term bearing arms was understood as not referring exclusively to military service.

Although without modifying terms, as mentioned above, bearing arms probably did not refer to the mere carrying or hunting with arms.

The Second Amendment as passed by the House of Representatives read:

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the People, being the best security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person. (source)
In the conscientious objector clause, "bearing arms" clearly conveys an exclusively military or fighting connotation, and thus it would seem "to bear arms" also has a military meaning. Otherwise, we are talking about different meanings associated with the same word within the same amendment. Highly improbable, especially since most of the framers were lawyers.

*******************************************************************

If Joe the Jag was really a lawyer, He would be able to rebut my post. Since he is not and is afraid of me, my post stands unrebutted.

The faux lawyer, Joe the Jag, again sets up a question which is loaded. He is so moronic that he thinks that all conservatives do not know it is a set up. What a Jag he is.

He wrote:

--Should television and radio broadcasters enjoy the same freedoms as the "press" under the first amendment?

A set up.

Newspapers were published in the colonies even before the Revolution. TV and Radio are 20th Century inventions.

Joe the Jag is not a real lawyer or he would not ask stupid questions like those he asks without giving all of the facts.

Note:

Several cases have arisen challenging the freedom of the press to report what it chooses or of laws limiting that freedom. Many of these cases overlap significantly with other First Amendment cases, such as the New York Times defamation case cited above. Consequently, the same privileges that are protected at the individual level are also enjoyed by the press. One major exception is the Court's stance that the First Amendment does not give reporters the right to withhold information they gathered confidentially. If called to testify, the reporter may have to divulge the sources of information they have reported (see Branzburg v. Hayes).

In two separate cases, the Court ruled that the rights enjoyed by the print media are, in some cases, broader than those enjoyed by the broadcast media (radio and television). While newspapers do not have to provide space for persons to respond to negative stories about them, radio and television stations may be required to provide airtime. Why the difference? The government regulates the number of radio and television signals that can be broadcast in a give geographical area. Consequently, there are a limited number of radio and television stations in a city or town. If someone is criticized on television or on the radio, there are a limited number of places he or she can go to respond. Newspapers, however are not limited by the government. Anyone with a printing press (or a copying machine) can produce a "paper" and distribute it. If someone is criticized in a newspaper, the Court does not require that paper to give them the chance to respond because there are numerous different ways in which they could respond, even printing their own paper.
****************************************************************

Joe the Jag won't tell us that even newspapers do not have the right to withhold information they have withheld confidentially

AND, Radio and TV are required to provide air time to those critiqued for the reasons noted above. As almost everyone knows, reputable sources do provide airtime.

What Joe the Jag obviously does not know is that the illiterates that voted for Obama are unable to read the newspaper editorials with and kind of understanding so they are limited to the regurgitations of the most beautious Whoopie Goldberg for their political groundings.




Several cases have arisen challenging the freedom of the press to report what it chooses or of laws limiting that freedom. Many of these cases overlap significantly with other First Amendment cases, such as the New York Times defamation case cited above. Consequently, the same privileges that are protected at the individual level are also enjoyed by the press. One major exception is the Court's stance that the First Amendment does not give reporters the right to withhold information they gathered confidentially. If called to testify, the reporter may have to divulge the sources of information they have reported (see Branzburg v. Hayes).

In two separate cases, the Court ruled that the rights enjoyed by the print media are, in some cases, broader than those enjoyed by the broadcast media (radio and television). While newspapers do not have to provide space for persons to respond to negative stories about them, radio and television stations may be required to provide airtime. Why the difference? The government regulates the number of radio and television signals that can be broadcast in a give geographical area. Consequently, there are a limited number of radio and television stations in a city or town. If someone is criticized on television or on the radio, there are a limited number of places he or she can go to respond. Newspapers, however are not limited by the government. Anyone with a printing press (or a copying machine) can produce a "paper" and distribute it. If someone is criticized in a newspaper, the Court does not require that paper to give them the chance to respond because there are numerous different ways in which they could respond, even printing their own paper.

******************************************************************


Joe the Jag continues:

--Should conversations be protected from warrantless electronic eavesdropping under the fourth amendment?

Again, poorly worded and a set up---

What Joe the Jag does not know is the following:
NOTICE THE DATE OF THE ADJUDICATION--JUNE 4, 2009

Judge Revisits Warrantless Eavesdropping
Justice Department, Attorneys for Defunct Charity Must Further Explain Positions

Thursday, June 4, 2009

A federal judge yesterday declined to penalize Justice Department lawyers for flouting his orders in a sensitive electronic surveillance case where the Obama administration sided with its predecessors to the alarm of civil liberties groups.

But U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker did not give the government what it wanted, either. The San Francisco-based judge batted away fresh Justice Department attempts to appeal his rulings, which have been critical of President Obama's approach to protecting state secrets.

Instead, the judge directed attorneys for the administration and for a now-defunct Oregon charity to prepare court filings this summer about the legality of the government's warrantless eavesdropping program and the scope of the executive branch's authority.

The case involves the al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, an Oregon charity whose lawyers apparently were overheard on phone conversations under a highly classified National Security Agency surveillance program. The dispute is the deepest and most advanced case to plumb the Bush era's electronic eavesdropping initiative.


Government lawyers for Obama's Justice Department angered the judge this year by arguing that the charity did not have a "need to know" sensitive information and by asserting that they might withdraw documents from the court rather than turn them over to plaintiffs.

Yesterday, Jon Eisenberg, who represents the defunct charity's lawyers, said the Justice Department is now in a position of spelling out its view of executive power, which could conflict with Obama's rhetoric on the campaign trail.

Eisenberg said the judge put off for a later date the charity's request that the government pay its legal fees.

"This is not an ordinary discovery dispute in an ordinary case," Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said. "It involves information that our nation's highest elected and military officials have determined must be protected because such disclosure would irrevocably compromise important national security interests. These officials have submitted lengthy explanations to the district court for their reasoning. We are grateful that the court recognized the importance of this interest."

Already, Obama and Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. have launched reviews of the government's strategy for protecting state secrets, including ways that could give judges more authority to review sensitive materials rather than dismissing lawsuits altogether.

In April, a federal appeals court in California rejected the Obama administration's effort to invoke the state secrets privilege in a case involving the rendition of terrorism suspects to secret CIA "black site" prisons overseas.

Criticism of the state secrets argument has gained currency among congressional Democrats. Today, the House Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing examining ways to protect classified information without crippling whistleblowers' ability to sue. The Senate Judiciary Committee also could vote as early as today on a similar legislation drafted by Chairman Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.)
******************************************************************

The judge wants the Obama Administration to prepare court filings about the legality of the government's warrantless eavesdropping program.

*****************************************************************

So, the answer, Joe the Jag, if you were a real lawyer, you would know that the answer has not yet been formulated. So you can stick that question where the sun does not shine.

****************************************************************
Is Joe the Jag really so stupid? Does he think that anyone with an IQ above 90 would say yes to the question below?

What a stupid question made by a stupid person.

Joe the Jag asked:

-Would imposition of the death penalty for theft violate the "cruel and unusual" provisions of the eighth amendment?

For theft?

They don't even impose the death penalty very often any more.

I doubt you are a lawyer, as this response would contradict common sense. You seem to have a problem distinguishing the Constitution from Legislative policy. Go to school and pay attention.

Again, you are another clear reflection of youthful ignorance Debra "Law".

Don't do yourself any favors here dude.

Your argument was laid out before you, and the specifics of how it's self contrary were articulated. Before you go and pick a who knows more about the legal system with one of A2Ks most educated minds, perhaps yuo answer to her post in terms of the details.

You've yet to tell me how the "Defense of Marriage Act" can coexist with the full faith and credit clause.

If you want to be taken seriously here, you should step up to the burden and defend what you post. You aren't entitled to be taken seriously. If you don't want to, you'll just get filed under troll and probably ignored and forgotten.

T
K
O

Obama is repeatedly violating "the supreme law of the land." For that reason he must be removed from office as soon as lawfully possible. I recommend he be impeached by the House and removed by the Senate. Others are recommending their state secede from the union on the grounds that Obama's federal government is violating its contract with their state. That contract is the Constitution of the USA as Amended by the states.

In particular, Obama's federal government is violating Amendment V:
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Obama's federal government is transferring property from those who have lawfully earned it to those who have not lawfully earned it.

My statement is amply supported by the evidence presented in the post. The fact that you have chosen to respond with personal attacks against me rather than address the evidence demonstrates that you do not have a valid argument.

If my post reflects a "problem distinguishing the Constitution from Legislative policy," please support your allegation. Where is this alleged problem presented in the post? What claims are you making to support your allegation?

I specifically cited a case wherein the United States Supreme Court applied the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to strike down discriminatory state marriage laws. Because the Fourteenth Amendment expressly PROHIBITS states from depriving persons of equal protection of the laws, your reliance on the Tenth Amendment is misplaced.

It appears that you're the one who does not understand the hierarchy of laws. The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land. In other words, if a state law conflicts with the federal Constitution, then the federal constitution prevails.

Again, here's my post:



If you have a valid argument that rebuts my post, please make it.

Yankee- Debra LAW is not a real lawyer. I say that because most of her posts are not legally sound. The battle about "same-sex" marriage will continue but it is clear that, at this time, the score is something like 42-8.
The Same sex marriage group is winning.





The Defense of Marriage Act Posted: April 30, 2004



The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is a federal law designed to give states the right to refuse recognition of a same-sex marriage approved by another state. It also defines marriage as a union between a man and woman for the purposes of federal law.

The act is divided into two major sections. The first section deals with authority given to the states, and says, "No state, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other state, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other state, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship."

The second section provides a federal definition of marriage as an institution between one man and one woman, with the word "spouse" referring only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or wife.

Republican Rep. Bob Barr of Georgia introduced DOMA in May 1996. The bill passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 342-67 and the Senate by a vote of 85-14. President Clinton signed the bill on Sept. 21, 1996.

Since 1996, legal experts and political leaders have debated the constitutionality of DOMA. Some have argued that it clearly violates the "full faith and credit" clause of the U.S. Constitution, which reads, "Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof."

When President George W. Bush announced support for a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, he referenced what he sees as DOMA's potential vulnerability at the hands of what he termed "activist" judges, under the full faith and credit clause.

"The Constitution says that full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts and records and judicial proceedings of every other state," the president said. "Those who want to change the meaning of marriage will claim that this provision requires all states and cities to recognize same-sex marriages performed anywhere in America. Congress attempted to address this problem in the Defense of Marriage Act, by declaring that no state must accept another state's definition of marriage. My administration will vigorously defend this act of Congress. Yet there is no assurance that the Defense of Marriage Act will not, itself, be struck down by activist courts."

Whether or not DOMA squares with the Constitution is also a matter of debate among legal scholars. Some have said DOMA should not be subject to the full faith and credit clause because the clause itself gives Congress the right to control the "effect" of the agreements that fall under it.

Pepperdine University law professor Douglas Kmiec, who has expressed support for the president's plan to constitutionally define marriage as the union of a man and a woman, told the NewsHour in July 2003 that the full faith and credit clause is "is subject to a very important qualification, and the qualification is that Congress can define the manner and effect of the judgments from the other state."

University of Pittsburgh law professor Rhonda Wasserman disagrees. Wasserman told the Online NewsHour that other legal scholars have posited the "more convincing argument" that the second half of the full faith and credit clause "should not be read to permit a selective withdrawal of recognition for only same-sex marriages."

Despite the constitutional issues surrounding DOMA, however, supporters of the president's plan believe that a constitutional amendment is now needed in addition to DOMA, due to recent court rulings and legislative action.

"This is a subject upon which clarity is needed and not confusion," Kmiec told the NewsHour in February 2004.

Since DOMA's adoption, legal experts have also debated whether the act's granting of the ostensible right not to recognize marriage from another state was necessary in the first place. A long-held standard of American case law known as the "public policy exception" exempts any state from recognizing a law from another state if it is found to be "offensive" to the receiving state's public policy. This standard is included in what is known as "choice of law" doctrine. "Choice of law" guides judges when they must consider conflicting statutes between two states or nations.

California Western School of Law professor and same-sex marriage rights advocate Barbara Cox told the Online NewsHour that, historically, with the public policy exception in place, states have ruled more often on the side of recognition of marriages performed in another state in order to maintain stability.

"If a marriage was valid where celebrated, then it was considered valid everywhere. Because of the strong public policies behind this general rule, there exists in the United States an overwhelming tendency to validate out-of-state marriages, even if those marriages would not have been permitted in the couple's home state," says Cox. "The reasons for doing this are to confirm the parties' expectations, to provide stability in an area where stability is vital (particularly because of children, property, and other financial and medical issues), and to avoid the potentially 'hideous problems' that would result if the legality of a couple's marriage varied as the couple crossed the country."

Cox argues that DOMA goes beyond the public policy exception by allowing states to "treat the marriages of same-sex couples with disdain and refuse to recognize them, even if a particular state has always recognized the out-of-state marriages of its citizens who were similarly prevented from marrying in their home state."

Cox has asserted that if DOMA did not exist, more same-sex couples would be extended legal marriages under marriage recognition case law.

Since DOMA's passage, however, some 38 states have passed their own versions of DOMA, making the definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman part of their public policy and explicitly stating that same-sex marriages from other states will not be legally recognized. Some legal experts have said that under the "public policy exception" standard, these states can now deny recognition of marriages performed elsewhere on the grounds of precedent in case law -- without reference to the federal DOMA law. This, they say, reverses the tendency toward recognition under case law.

"While choice of law doctrine has usually favored the recognition of marriages that are valid in the celebration state, this has never been an immutable rule and has long been the subject of the public policy limitation," Patrick Borchers, dean of Creighton University Law School, wrote in a book titled, "Marriage and Same-Sex Unions: A Debate." "More than half of the states now have statutes that positively prohibit recognition of same-sex marriages, and others may well apply the public policy exception to the celebration rule," he wrote.

This means, according to Borchers, that states with their own DOMA statutes would have solid legal grounds on which to deny recognition of same sex marriage.

Wasserman similarly argues that if states alone had instituted DOMA laws then the federal DOMA statute may not have been necessary at all. However, she also asserts an important condition in the type of public act being considered by the receiving state.

"If states may invoke the public policy exception to avoid recognition of same-sex marriages performed elsewhere, then DOMA is largely unnecessary, for many states have enacted statutes that clearly state a public policy to limit marriage to opposite-sex couples," said Wasserman. "But one must ask whether states really are free to employ the public policy exception."

Wasserman said that the public policy exception only applies to the laws of other states. "Judgments," that is, judicial proceedings from another state, must be recognized. Marriages are not usually viewed as judgments.

"If, however, a court were to render a judgment that recognized the validity of a same-sex marriage, then -- in the absence of DOMA -- other states would have to recognize that judgment notwithstanding their policy against same-sex marriage," she said. "Thus, DOMA (if constitutional) would permit states to disregard judgments that they otherwise would be required to recognize."

Some same-sex marriage advocates have said this unfairly singles out same-sex couples. Cox has written that the federal and state DOMA laws might be challenged as a violation of equal protection rights guaranteed under the Constitution's 14th Amendment.

This reasoning leads naturally to a debate about the nature and definition of marriage and the meaning of gender in society. Advocates of same-sex marriage believe that the federal and state DOMA statutes are constitutionally vulnerable because they lead to unequal treatment of same-sex couples.

Opponents of same-sex marriage have argued that those laws are safe and appropriate in that marriage, by its nature, is a union between a man and a woman. Therefore, they argue, same-sex relationships, by their nature, are something other than marriage. They also assert that the state has an interest in maintaining and protecting marriage as a fundamental institution of society. Instead of federal and state DOMA laws and/or a constitutional amendment denying rights, opponents of same sex marriage believe they affirm marriage.

"[S]tates have preferred marriage, have given it a position of prominence because it does some very important things," Kmiec said. "It supplies new members to our community and it supplies a household that is the most important educator for our community. In this sense it's not a denial of right; it is an affirmation of what is important."

-

Diest TKO--that beacon of MORAL RECTITUDE, wrote:

You've yet to tell me how the "Defense of Marriage Act" can coexist with the full faith and credit clause.


Here is the answer:

"The Constitution says that full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts and records and judicial proceedings of every other state," the president said. "Those who want to change the meaning of marriage will claim that this provision requires all states and cities to recognize same-sex marriages performed anywhere in America. Congress attempted to address this problem in the Defense of Marriage Act, by declaring that no state must accept another state's definition of marriage. My administration will vigorously defend this act of Congress. Yet there is no assurance that the Defense of Marriage Act will not, itself, be struck down by activist courts."

Yankee, Diest is threatening you. don't let him do that. If you read these posts carefully you will soon learn that there are two types of posters. Morons like Diest who stamp their little feet,throw a temper tantrum and say--If you don't think like me, I won't even listen to you.

Diest is a total fascist asshole. Don't listen to his threats, yankee. Keep posting your opinions.

OK, young lady (I presume you are a lady from your "handle")

You do not know me nor have you read any of my posts, yet you jump to a conclusion without basis. I embrace discrimination? How? Is it because I believe States should legislate their "marriage contracts" and not the Feds? Yet, the 14th amendment should still apply. They can co-exist, you know. The Homosexual Marriage issue should not be an issue. Yet politicians who oppose as well as those who support seem unable to reconcile the Defense of Marriage Act at the federal level.

I merely point out the problem, yet you somehow come to an erroneous conclusion. That makes you in my mind a naive child.

Dude??? That is the second time I recall you referring to me as such.

Again, you reflect another shining example of youthful ignorance. See the above post for the response.

Before you respond, try careful consideration before attempting to slander me again.

Diest acts and comments as a child and should be treated as such.

Dude ! ! !

It seems that calling other people children is the only arrow in your pathetic quiver. How about attempting to refute the content of peoples' posts? Oh . . . right . . . that would require actual thought on your part. Silly me.

Well good morning to you Setanta. Apparently you missed the response.

Silly me?

Dude ! ! !

Apparently, Fox, you think belittling remarks constitute a plausible response to someone's argument. They do not.



We all await your brilliant response with breath abated.

Take a breath young boy and read the response.

Independant of what you believe (and it sounds like you think that should be really important to the nation at large) the rights states should have in this, the fact remains that every state is subject to the full faith and credit clause which is directly contrary to what you "believe." States must honor marriages from other states.

You don't like being called "dude?" You'll get upgraded to "coward" if you don't start bringing some sort of intellectual merit to your posts. It won't be me slandering you, but rather your inability to defend your beliefs labeling you de facto.

I am unmoved by your macho posturing. You're not special. You are not the first poster to come and expect entitlement. Grow up and defend your posts, or prepare for troll-obscurity.

T
K
O