Where is the US economy headed?

@okie,

Why was Roe vs Wade a bad decision? Please explain your answer consistent with the constitution.

@talk72000,

talk72000 wrote:

The Constitution is the bare fundamentals and was written in an agricultural society. It is up to the government of the moment to make laws better suited to the society at that time. Living in a society means a lot of give and take. Your position is just take.

The Constitution of the USA does not consist of "the bare fundamentals." It is a contract between the people of each state and the federal government. It is a contract that limits the powers of the federal government to those powers believed necessary to secure our liberty and safety.

As lawfully amended it is "the supreme law of the land. It has been lawfully amended 27 times. The 13th Amendment was ratified December 6, 1865 when the USA's population was almost equally agricultural and industrial. The 16th Amendment was ratified February 3, 1913 when the USA's population was more industrial than agricultural. The 27th Amendment was ratified May 7, 1992 when the USA's population was predominantly industrial.

I strongly favor the rule of law as the principal means whereby a nation's government can successfully evolve to secure the liberty and safety of its people. In particular, I strongly favor only those changes to the rule of law that occur in a manner prescribed by the rule of law itself.

The current government of the USA does not adhere to the rule of law. Arbitrary non-rule of law decisions by our government, ostensibly to better the lives of our people, if allowed to persist will inevitably greatly reduce our people's liberty and safety.

Consider the USSR's Communist government. It murdered over 100 million of its people before it was ended. Yet it was advertised as the means to create a utopia.

0 Replies

@plainoldme,

plainoldme wrote:

How are judges supposed to rule on issues involving contemporary technology?

Judges are required to "rule on issues involving contemporary technology" in strict accord with the rule of law.

What do you perceive about the current Constitutional rule of law that prohibits judges from rationally ruling on issues involving contemporary technology?

If you are correct that the current Constitutional rule of law prohibits judges from rationally ruling on issues involving contemporary technology, then you will have identified a change or changes in the Constitutional rule of law that can be made in strict accord with the amendment process according to Article V of the Constitution.

1 Reply

@plainoldme,

Quote:

I have been talking about the real criminals in America: those in the top 1% of the earnings heap

So how is a professional athlete a criminal if they earn a lot of money?

Quote:

Does the fleeting pleasure they provide really earn some of the inflated salaries they demand?

This sounds more like jealousy on your part then an actual complaint.
Tell me, if your boss was to offer you that kind of money to do your job, would you take it, or would you consider it criminal?

1 Reply

@talk72000,

But what if those laws directly contradict the constitution?
Shouldnt the constitution take precedence?

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

Are you asking so to speak, that if a state such as alabama makes it a state law that everyone in the state of alabama has to be a muslim and all christians should be stoned to death, "what should we go with the state law or the constitution? Maybe I misunderstand these complex debates!

0 Replies

@plainoldme,

I oppose all abortions after the fetus is a fully formed human being, except those abortions necessary to protect the life of the mother.

It is my understanding that a fetus becomes fully formed after the 19th week of the usuual 39 week pregnancy. If that were found to be always true then I would oppose all abortions after the 19th week of pregnancy, except those abortions necessary to protect the life of the mother, because then after the 19th week the fetus would be a fully formed human being who possesses the right to life just like all the rest of us.

I do not opposes abortion of fetuses NOT fully formed human beings, since I believe not fully formed human beings do not possesses the right to life just like all the rest of us.

I realize that both Leftist Liberals and Rightist Liberals (i.e., Conservatives) may disagree with me. It is their privilege to do so. All Leftist Liberals may favor abortions any time. All Rightist Liberals may oppose all abortions except those to protect the life of the mother.
.

1 Reply

WE SHALL SEE?

Quote:

Nullification
How To Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century

By Thomas Woods, Jr.

Think you can’t stop big government? Yes you can

Did you know the states don’t have to obey federal legislation forced on them? Virginia, Idaho, and 34 other states are fighting the federal healthcare law, Arizona is protecting its borders, and Washington State, Oklahoma, and Tennessee are fighting cap-and-trade legislation.

How? Through nullification.

In his new book, Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century, bestselling author Thomas E. Woods explains that nullification is the very constitutional tool the Founders envisioned to protect people from an overreaching federal government.

Often proclaimed by leftist pundits and liberal politicians to be an outdated archaic notion, Woods proves nullification is anything but—as evidence of the growing number of governors and state attorneys general who are using it today to check a government drunk on power.

Through historical writings, case studies, and speeches by the Founding Fathers, Woods builds a logical and constitutionally sound case for nullification, revealing:

>How we can roll back Obamacare, stimulus spending, and other unconstitutional expansions of federal power;
>How the Founding Fathers believed that nullification was the “moderate middle ground,” not the road to secession;
>Why the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution gives the states the power to nullify unconstitutional laws;
>Why states—not the Supreme Court—should arbitrate disputes between the states and the federal government over the constitutionality of the federal government’s actions.

As Thomas Jefferson said, there is a “rightful remedy” to the federal government’s uncontrollable quest for power—it’s called nullification. Hardcover: 309 pages

About the Author: Thomas E. Woods, Jr., holds a bachelor’s degree in history from Harvard and his master’s, M.Phil., and Ph.D. from Columbia University. A senior fellow at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, he is the author of ten books, including the New York Times bestsellers Meltdown and The Politically Incorrect Guide™ to American History. Woods won the 50,000 first prize in the 2006 Templeton Enterprise Awards for his book The Church and the Market, and co-edited Exploring American History: From Colonial Times to 1877, an eleven-volume encyclopedia. He lives with his family in Auburn, Alabama.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

@okie,
Why was Roe vs Wade a bad decision? Please explain your answer consistent with the constitution.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Why was Roe vs Wade a bad decision? Please explain your answer consistent with the constitution.

It was based upon something called the "Right to Privacy," which is actually not found in the constitution, it has been a concept wholly invented or construed from other statements in the constitution. The common sense reasoning that I use to believe it is faulty reasoning, ci, is the fact that there are many laws outlawing many things done in private involving your body, and the Supreme Court has not struck those laws down. Examples might be drug use and prostitution for starters. I think there are lots more. I just thought of another example, tattooing is legislated by state and so it varies by state, with many states outlawing it for minors under the age of 18. I presume none of those laws making it illegal for minors have been struck down due to something called the Right to Privacy.

I do not believe the constitution was written only for elitist legal scholars or Supreme Court justices to interpret in convoluted ways that only they might understand. I believe the founders intended that it could be read and understood by all Americans. I realize the way our political system operates, it dictates the necessity for the Supreme Court to make rulings, but that is by no means a guarantee that their rulings are correct or even logical in every case. In fact, I believe they have gotten off track more than just Roe v Wade. If you look back in history, you will find other cases that were not sound, such as Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896.

1 Reply

@okie,

Quote:

The Supreme Court decisions over the years have established that the right to privacy is a basic human right, and as such is protected by virtue of the 9th Amendment.

You always seem to believe you're smarter than the Supreme Court of this country. You elevate yourself to be judge, jury, and executioner, but it makes you look more stupid, because it shows you know nothing about the constitution or our laws.

The supreme court decided this issue; you have no say in the matter.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

So can you point out where it says in the constitution that the Right to Privacy is a basic human right, ci? The 9th Amendment does not tell us that, so you will need to find where it says that.

And surely you realize the Supreme Court has itself reversed previous decisions, or are you oblivious to that fact?

1 Reply

@okie,

I don't have to; the supreme court ruled on that already.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Where did the Court find the Right to Privacy in the Constitution, ci, on which their Roe v Wade decision was made?

A hint for you, ci, I think it has been based upon the 4th Amendment, which reads as follows:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The important thing to recognize here, however, is that it still does not mention any right to privacy, and this amendment is actually addressing other issues of being searched and your personal effects being confiscated without any reason. Note also, that the term "unreasonable" is in the text, which is potentially ignored in the constitution when it is used.

If you study all of the stuff surrounding the Roe v Wade opinion, I believe one must conclude the right to privacy was an invented term, which was then wrongly applied to an action. The action itself is the issue here, not the right to privacy, and that is where I think the court went wrong. Again, I do not believe the constitution was meant to be unreadible and impossible for average citizens to understand.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie, Are you really "that" stupid? The supreme court has the responsibility to interpret the constitution.

BTW, you don't have any responsibility to interpret the constitution for the rest of our society.

1 Reply

CI,
Unless I am misunderstanding you, you seem to be saying that the way the USSC interprets the Constitution and applies it to a given case is the correct interpretation.
Is that a fair assessment?

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

But that does not preclude us out here from having our opinions, ci. I would still challenge you to find in the constitution any reference at all to the Right to Privacy.

Actually, I vote we disband this argument and presume you will not find the clause, nor will I change my mind no matter how many insults you hurl at me.

The real subject of this thread is the economy, and I do not see it improving at all, in fact are we entering another swoon right now? And please do not hurl out some insult about it will take a long time to correct what Bush did. Obama has been president almost 2 years, and whether you like it or not, it is now his economy.

2 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

Actually, I vote we disband this argument...

The real subject of this thread is the economy...

Is there a second to that motion?

0 Replies

@au1929,

Could we be following the foot steps of the roman empire?

0 Replies

@okie,

There are opinions, and there are "opinions." Your opinions that overrules the supreme court can be considered stupid opinion. Your disagreements with the supreme court has no weight or reality to them; it's total bull ****.

There can be opinions that have not been settled by the supreme court that are legitimate topics for discussion.

Your opinions make you sound like a total ignoramus.

0 Replies

Where is the US economy headed?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know