It's cleverly worded "all men are created equal..." It doesn't mean they remain equal -- social and other circumstantial forces have something to do with that as well as the individual's own effort to better themselves. It's been quoted that Dubya wants to do something for those "left behind." Left behind from what? The ability to be an entrepreneur who can devise a business entity that cheats its way to the top? The Constitution is a guide for the laws of the land which are primarily based on, not so curiously, English laws which are, not so curiously, based on Roman law. As I said before, unless we are going to allow Christian prayer in the courts, we can't allow a decision to be based on christian dogma. It's done all the time, I'm sure, and the judges who are influenced by their religion are astute enough to not blurt it out in court. There are many laws that were derived from the Old Testament that have been gradually overturned in the United States, most notable those on sexual practices in the privacy of a home. We're about to see where that's going to go.
Yes, and unfortunately, we're along for the ride, like it or not.
I'd concur wholeheartedly there Setanta!
My intent wasn't to say that there shouldn't be any concern (I have quite a few myself). People should however, strive to be rational in their concerns and not misconstrue what is written and run off on tangents by reading things in that aren't there - things that quite often are in direct opposition to what IS there.
I haven't read any of this Professor's writings or looked at anything that lists his views on issues so I'm not in a position to say anything about him one way or another.
Fair play to ya, Boss. I'll tell the lynch mob to stand by while we dig up some pretext . . .
The difference between conservative and liberal viewpoints in the courts is always construed to mean that the conservative is not empathetic towards a criminal and the liberal is empathetic towards a criminal. It's tough for them to be objective if the interject feelings into the process. The law is, unfortunately, not an exact science. There's the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. One must consider the spirit of the law as well as the letter of the law when passing judgement. Justice may be blind but some are peaking out from under the blindfold!
What I have never understood and probably never will is that conservatives by definition are supposed to be for less government intrusion not more. But it is the conservitives who seem to be the most intrusive and try to limit individual rights.
JD, You talking 'bout the christian right?
Even GWBushie tries to influence our laws on abortion, DNA research, and private sexual practices - all based on his christian leanings. c.i.
JD, as long as it isn't government interfering by helping out the poor, the needy or the helpless. Then, it is for "less government". Why? there isn't a dollar to be earned here!
Religious concepts are not legal concepts.
BillW, Hate to bring the bad news, but GWBushie is pressing for his 'religious programs funding initiative.' So much for the separation of church and state. c.i.
Yes, BillW, and IMHO he's opening a can of worms with teeth that will come back and bite him in the ass. Can you imagine the potential for scandal. How much will be given to the Catholic church, how much to Muslem mosques and how much to Scientology? Ridiculous, myopic thinking that could only come from someone who could choke on a pretzel.
LW, Why don't you send GWBushie a big bag of pretzels - the largest ones you can find. You never know what can happen..... c.i.
pretzels and coke, that's the ticket!
I learned - re the first few posts of this thread - that natural law was natural...
that everybody gravitated toward it...it was natural.
I didn't see anyone pick up that as a way of natural law.
I myself am not interested in any of this, and be out of the discussion.
As usual, I am sorry for the grammatical goof in my expressing my opinion.
Ossobuco, don't worry about your grammar or spelling--good manners at on-line discussion boards suggest that it is in poor taste to take note of any such errors--anyone who takes you to task on the issue is a bore and a lout. If you like, you can use the radio button marked "edit" which you will see at the upper-right hand side of your post . . . but, basically, don't worry about it . . .
Grammatical errors when one is often writing off-the-cuff never bother me unless they are rampant -- inventing words certainly does damage credibility. I think it has to do with pretending one knows what they are talking about and then posting long, vacuous brain musings rife with misspellings, poorly constructed sentences and what reads more like rhetorical garbage than actually stating any reasonable argument. Never had that problem comprehending what you mean, osso. If I ever do, I already know you well enough to just ask a question.
