RE: Dominance in other Countries?

RE: Dominance in other Countries? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

Rover -> RE: Dominance in other Countries? (11/6/2008 4:10:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MarcEsadrian I for the most part agree with you, John. But times do change, and sometimes we need clarity on matters that are vital to our freedoms, or others would just as nefariously exploit ambiguity in our government's framework for their own agendas. Marc, there was (and is) nothing ambiguous about the rights granted in the Constitution. What has changed is that nine black robed Justices, without the consent of the governed, have decided that it should mean something else or something additional. That is not clarifying ambiguity, it's amending the Constitution and for that we have a clear and unambiguous process (which I have previously posted in this thread). Seriously, you're looking for justification for the Judicially mandated amendments that you like, while seeking redress for what you perceive to be Executively mandated amendments. If you justify one, you justify the other. Neither is correct. John

HalloweenWhite -> RE: Dominance in other Countries? (11/6/2008 4:41:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rover quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent I reckon you could be shacked up with a penguin, here, and the government wouldn't bat a collective eye-lid. A public movement threatening the English way of life, would be a different matter altogether. Does that mean to imply that shacking up with a penguin is part of the fabric of English life? Inquiring minds want to know. John Actually, I've just collard a whole bunch of penguins, who I've found much easier to control than able bodied women, who are all bigger than Me, trouble is, b.j's are a bit more of a risk though.[sm=bite.gif]

Rover -> RE: Dominance in other Countries? (11/6/2008 4:58:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HalloweenWhite Actually, I've just collard a whole bunch of penguins, who I've found much easier to control than able bodied women, who are all bigger than Me, trouble is, b.j's are a bit more of a risk though.[sm=bite.gif] Look at the bright side... there's no need to spend big money on evening wear. John

HalloweenWhite -> RE: Dominance in other Countries? (11/6/2008 5:17:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rover quote: ORIGINAL: HalloweenWhite Actually, I've just collard a whole bunch of penguins, who I've found much easier to control than able bodied women, who are all bigger than Me, trouble is, b.j's are a bit more of a risk though.[sm=bite.gif] Look at the bright side... there's no need to spend big money on evening wear. John Hehehe very true, they don't seem that bothered about fancy jewelery either.

MarcEsadrian -> RE: Dominance in other Countries? (11/6/2008 8:13:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rover quote: ORIGINAL: MarcEsadrian I for the most part agree with you, John. But times do change, and sometimes we need clarity on matters that are vital to our freedoms, or others would just as nefariously exploit ambiguity in our government's framework for their own agendas. Marc, there was (and is) nothing ambiguous about the rights granted in the Constitution. By virtue of so much divisive dialog on the matter of the First Amendment and its intent by the Founders, I emphatically disagree. I believe it says one thing, you believe it says another. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" obviously has a different meaning to me than it does to you. As I've said previously, there has been plenty of noise about the issue, and Congress has had ample opportunity to address the matter with another Amendment. This has yet to happen, but I harbor great hope it does eventually, as I do believe church and state should exist in perfect separation. Until then, we'll be leaving it up to disenchanting public discourse, the agendas of our elected officials and the ordained Priests of the Law.

Rover -> RE: Dominance in other Countries? (11/6/2008 8:44:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MarcEsadrian As I've said previously, there has been plenty of noise about the issue, and Congress has had ample opportunity to address the matter with another Amendment. This has yet to happen, but I harbor great hope it does eventually, as I do believe church and state should exist in perfect separation. And that would be working within the clear and unambiguous framework that the Constitution sets forth for such matters. And I would completely agree. quote: Until then, we'll be leaving it up to disenchanting public discourse, the agendas of our elected officials and the ordained Priests of the Law. And if you accept this, then you have no basis for complaint when someone (George Bush, for example) were to interpret portions of the Constitution in a manner to which you do not agree. You cannot have it both ways (ie: accepting interpretations that agree with your opinion, and denying those that do not) without becoming intellectually dishonest. It's the process that is either correct or incorrect, and consistently so, whether you like the outcome or not. John

MarcEsadrian -> RE: Dominance in other Countries? (11/6/2008 10:13:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rover quote: Until then, we'll be leaving it up to disenchanting public discourse, the agendas of our elected officials and the ordained Priests of the Law. And if you accept this, then you have no basis for complaint when someone (George Bush, for example) were to interpret portions of the Constitution in a manner to which you do not agree. John So say you. I just so happen to believe the way it's currently worded affords protection from religion. You will no doubt argue otherwise, and I will counter, ad nauseam. That is not to say this hasn't been an interesting thread, however.

Rover -> RE: Dominance in other Countries? (11/6/2008 2:56:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MarcEsadrian So say you. I just so happen to believe the way it's currently worded affords protection from religion. You will no doubt argue otherwise, and I will counter, ad nauseam. That is not to say this hasn't been an interesting thread, however. Perhaps I didn't explain myself very well, or perhaps you misunderstood me. But I wasn't making a point about the outcome. We can indeed debate that until the cows come home. My point was about the process. If the process for amending the Constitution is ignored, and we the people allow the Judiciary, Executive or Legislative branches to bypass the clear and unambitguous process which the Constitution sets forth, then we have no intellectually honest basis for argument when they do so. Whether we consider the outcome right or wrong is immaterial. By justifying the process for outcomes we personally agree with, we have justified the process for outcomes we disagree with. Remember, each branch of government is co-equal. So if one branch is allowed to unilaterally amend the Constitution, then all the branches have the power to do so. The logical outcome is chaos, with competing versions of the Constitution that render the Constitution meaningless. "The ends justify the means" is no way to run a country. John

MarcEsadrian -> RE: Dominance in other Countries? (11/6/2008 5:43:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rover quote: ORIGINAL: MarcEsadrian So say you. I just so happen to believe the way it's currently worded affords protection from religion. You will no doubt argue otherwise, and I will counter, ad nauseam. That is not to say this hasn't been an interesting thread, however. Perhaps I didn't explain myself very well, or perhaps you misunderstood me. But I wasn't making a point about the outcome. We can indeed debate that until the cows come home. My point was about the process. If the process for amending the Constitution is ignored, and we the people allow the Judiciary, Executive or Legislative branches to bypass the clear and unambitguous process which the Constitution sets forth, then we have no intellectually honest basis for argument when they do so. Whether we consider the outcome right or wrong is immaterial. By justifying the process for outcomes we personally agree with, we have justified the process for outcomes we disagree with. Remember, each branch of government is co-equal. So if one branch is allowed to unilaterally amend the Constitution, then all the branches have the power to do so. The logical outcome is chaos, with competing versions of the Constitution that render the Constitution meaningless. "The ends justify the means" is no way to run a country. John As I said, I believe the way the First Amendment was interpreted is the way it was textually intended, deemed so by the Judicial Court, a branch of Government vested in interpreting the Constitution. I don't believe Everson or McCollum vs. Board of Education were ruled unfairly as it relates to the First Amendment. In all seriousness I don't see a conspiracy of ends justifies the means here; I see a legal and pragmatic protection against instances of state supported religion. The Supreme Court will never go away, and Presidents will always have the power to elect its judges. That means the Genie, as you put it, will always be out of the bottle. That is our reality as I see it.

Rover -> RE: Dominance in other Countries? (11/6/2008 6:11:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MarcEsadrian As I said, I believe the way the First Amendment was interpreted is the way it was textually intended, deemed so by the Judicial Court, a branch of Government vested in interpreting the Constitution. Which way it was interpreted? The way it was interpreted for the first 160 years after it was written, or the way it has been interpreted the past 60 years? Both interpretations were by the same Judicial Court, a branch of the Government vested in interpreting (not writing) the Constitution. quote: I don't believe Everson or McCollum vs. Board of Education were ruled unfairly as it relates to the First Amendment. Fair has nothing to do with Constitutional issues, or legal issues in general. That is a common misconception as it relates to law. quote: In all seriousness I don't see a conspiracy of ends justifies the means here; I see a legal and pragmatic protection against instances of state supported religion. Indeed... protection against the establishment of a national church. In fact, it is referred to as the "establishment clause" for precisely this reason. quote: The Supreme Court will never go away, and Presidents will always have the power to elect its judges. That means the Genie, as you put it, will always be out of the bottle. That is our reality as I see it. Actually, you misunderstand the issue of politicizing the Court. When Justices were allowed to remake law (referred to as "legislating from the bench") the process became political in precisely the same way that Congress is political. That was not the intention of the Founding Fathers. John

MarcEsadrian -> RE: Dominance in other Countries? (11/6/2008 7:12:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rover Fair has nothing to do with Constitutional issues, or legal issues in general. That is a common misconception as it relates to law. Fair as in judged correctly in regards to the First Amendment's purpose. My apologies for the lack of clarity. quote: ORIGINAL: Rover Actually, you misunderstand the issue of politicizing the Court. When Justices were allowed to remake law (referred to as "legislating from the bench") the process became political in precisely the same way that Congress is political. That was not the intention of the Founding Fathers. John I believe I'm stating the realities of our partisan and politicized system, despite its best intentions—a reality that I can't imagine has ever been free of politics in one form or another.

Rover -> RE: Dominance in other Countries? (11/6/2008 7:40:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MarcEsadrian Fair as in judged correctly in regards to the First Amendment's purpose. My apologies for the lack of clarity. Meaning that it was judged incorrectly during the 160 years that preceeded Justice Black? quote: I believe I'm stating the realities of our partisan and politicized system, despite its best intentions—a reality that I can't imagine has ever been free of politics in one form or another. You're stating the realities of legislation from the bench. Not of interpretation of the Constitution. The former being a modern construct, and the latter being the original Constitutional structure. Smart guys, those Founders. They forsaw the problem we have today, and despite their best effort to prevent it, we have managed to muck it up nonetheless. John

MarcEsadrian -> RE: Dominance in other Countries? (11/6/2008 8:19:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rover Meaning that it was judged incorrectly during the 160 years that preceeded Justice Black? I didn't imply it was judged "incorrectly" prior in that statement. I would have to have good familiarity of all cases from 1787 to now in regards to the First Amendment to make that assumption. quote: ORIGINAL: Rover You're stating the realities of legislation from the bench. Not of interpretation of the Constitution. It is my belief politics will inevitably be involved in either, and have been from the beginning. The system is fallible to human nature, and most likely always will be.

Rover -> RE: Dominance in other Countries? (11/6/2008 8:41:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MarcEsadrian quote: ORIGINAL: Rover Meaning that it was judged incorrectly during the 160 years that preceeded Justice Black? I didn't imply it was judged "incorrectly" prior in that statement. I would have to have good familiarity of all cases from 1787 to now in regards to the First Amendment to make that assumption. Well that's a bit of a cop out, Marc. The establishment clause was interpreted to mean one thing for 160 years, and to mean something entirely different for the past 60. You don't need to be familiar with every case prior to Justice Black to render such an opinion. Heck, until you read this thread you didn't even know who Justice Black was or his relationship to the First Amendment, yet that did not stop you from having an opinion on it. See, that's the Catch-22 you find yourself in. To agree with the modern interpretation of the establishment clause is to disagree with it's original meaning, and interpretation for 160 years (ie: you must agree that it is not what the Founders intended). And no matter how much you may like the modern interpretation, and wish it to be original intent, it is demonstrably not. There's nothing wrong with prefering the modern interpretation, as you have every right to your opinion. But it's intellectually dishonest to give your opinion the weight and appearance of original intent when that clearly is not the case. John

MarcEsadrian -> RE: Dominance in other Countries? (11/6/2008 9:25:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rover Heck, until you read this thread you didn't even know who Justice Black was or his relationship to the First Amendment, yet that did not stop you from having an opinion on it. [...] See, that's the Catch-22 you find yourself in. I don't see a "Catch-22" anywhere in my expressed sentiments. One thing I'm getting a little tired of are your constant assertions that my "side" of this dialog is fueled by ignorance. While I base most of my opinion about the First Amendment from the actual text itself and what history I know, the name of the Justice you mention is not and was not lost upon me. These discussions are supposed to be enjoyable and thought provoking, are they not? I think this may be the point in the thread where I'll suggest we agree to disagree. We've certainly hijacked its intended subject for far too long.

Rover -> RE: Dominance in other Countries? (11/7/2008 4:16:32 AM)
I sense a punt coming on at the realization of your Catch-22. Twice now you've manuevered around answering a direct question. Does your agreement with the modern interpretation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment mean that you believe the original interpretation that was in effect for 160 years prior was/is incorrect? The question is simple, direct, and unambiguous. Just the kind you like. I have no problem replying in the reverse, which is to say that I believe the modern interpretation of the establishment clause is not only incorrect, it is the fabrication of new Constitutional protections out of thin air, in contrast to the specified (also clear and unambiguous) process by which the Constitution may be amended. But for you to be just as clear would necessitate rejection of the obvious original intent of the First Amendment, and to admit that the modern interpretation is a de facto amendment by judicial fiat. Tough spot you're in there, Marc. Let's see if the third time is a charm, and you answer. John

Rover -> RE: Dominance in other Countries? (11/7/2008 4:18:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MarcEsadrian quote: ORIGINAL: Rover Heck, until you read this thread you didn't even know who Justice Black was or his relationship to the First Amendment, yet that did not stop you from having an opinion on it. [...] See, that's the Catch-22 you find yourself in. One thing I'm getting a little tired of are your constant assertions that my "side" of this dialog is fueled by ignorance. Not your "side", Marc. And not entirely by ignorance. I believe the greater factor is wishful thinking. John

MarcEsadrian -> RE: Dominance in other Countries? (11/7/2008 8:07:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rover Does your agreement with the modern interpretation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment mean that you believe the original interpretation that was in effect for 160 years prior was/is incorrect? Not at all. I don't see any smoking gun to prove the so-called "modern" interpretation—not amendment or revision—is any different than what the First Amendment was intended to say since its inception, not only in its literal phrasing, but in the expressed words of the Founders. The majority of modern thinking on the matter thus far seems to agree, as do more current rulings of the Supreme Court. I don't know what else to say here.

MsDonnaMia -> RE: Dominance in other Countries? (11/7/2008 8:54:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MarcEsadrian quote: ORIGINAL: Rover Heck, until you read this thread you didn't even know who Justice Black was or his relationship to the First Amendment, yet that did not stop you from having an opinion on it. [...] See, that's the Catch-22 you find yourself in. I don't see a "Catch-22" anywhere in my expressed sentiments. One thing I'm getting a little tired of are your constant assertions that my "side" of this dialog is fueled by ignorance. While I base most of my opinion about the First Amendment from the actual text itself and what history I know, the name of the Justice you mention is not and was not lost upon me. These discussions are supposed to be enjoyable and thought provoking, are they not? I think this may be the point in the thread where I'll suggest we agree to disagree. We've certainly hijacked its intended subject for far too long. lol i do believe we are seeing a pattern here. Person: blah blah blah Rover: Wrong! Person: blah blah blah Rover: Wrong, me Grimlock KING [:D][:D][:D]

Rover -> RE: Dominance in other Countries? (11/7/2008 9:12:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MarcEsadrian quote: ORIGINAL: Rover Does your agreement with the modern interpretation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment mean that you believe the original interpretation that was in effect for 160 years prior was/is incorrect? Not at all. I don't see any smoking gun to prove the so-called "modern" interpretation—not amendment or revision—is any different than what the First Amendment was intended to say since its inception, not only in its literal phrasing, but in the expressed words of the Founders. The majority of modern thinking on the matter thus far seems to agree, as do more current rulings of the Supreme Court. I don't know what else to say here. This statement alone is proof positive that you do not know your history, nor understand the process by which the modern interpretation of the establishment clause was developed and differs from the original. Tire all you like about inferences of ignorance, this single paragaph is a mea culpa to the extreme. You've made it clear that you want God out of governement, and out of the classroom (and to some degree, I would concur). But how and when do you presume God got in there in the first place? It was because 160 years of the establishment clause in the First Amendment allowed it to be so. And the past 60 years has been a gradual chipping away at the original intent and interpretation. You would have no complaint about God in government or the classroom today, if it was not allowed to exist from the outset. John

Page: << < prev 6 7 [8] 9 10 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875