 | | Re: Overview of Changes to Legal Rights
|
|
(...) Actually, as soon as it gets passed, the Supreme Court couldn't rule it unconstitutional. They can't do that until it is an issue in a case they hear. We would have to wait for somebody to be arrested via a law enacted by that bill. Then they (...) (22 years ago, 12-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Tribute to Sept 11, 2001
|
|
I made my own tribute: (URL) America Always Stand Tall (...) (22 years ago, 12-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Overview of Changes to Legal Rights
|
|
(...) For those of you who, like me, had trouble copying and pasting this link: (URL) William R Ward bill@wards.net (URL) Verbing weirds language. --Calvin (22 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: TJ acknowledged a Creator in DoI (was: Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) The value of the dollar was once based on the value of gold. It is now based on absolutely nothing but the will of the people to keep it going. Similarly, our "inalienable rights" were originally based on the commonly-held mythology of a God (...) (22 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) They didn't say "God." The closest they got was "Creator." I think that's a big difference. --Bill. (22 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) I don't see what relevance this has to anything I said. (...) Why? --Bill. (22 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) There is nothing in the Constitution about supporting a hobby or game. There is something about supporting a religion. And that's how it should be - religion is a much more controversial topic than chess or cameras. --Bill. (22 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) But if I want to say the *official* pledge, then by definition I have no choice but to speak the phrase. That's the problem, and, in addition, one's choice not to say the *official* pledge is easily construed as a lack of patriotism, which is (...) (22 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) but wouldn't that fact that the state "asked" that you say the words bad enough? I will have to say the pledge of allegance when I become a naturalized citizen. Do you think I won't say "under god", when the INS officer asks me to? Of course I (...) (22 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: TJ acknowledged a Creator in DoI (was: Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
John: You are looking at past history and past rhetoric with blinders on. Part of The Enlightenment project was to break with the "divine right of kings." That's why there is language of that type floating around. I am not saying that there weren't (...) (22 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) First, there is no "requirement". The state will not force you to speak those words (in fact it *allows* you to *not* speak them). A perfect analogy would be if Congress passed that same law but then included, "But if he feels uncomfortable (...) (22 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | TJ acknowledged a Creator in DoI (was: Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) No, Richard, it hasn't. I am not arguing that TJ was a Christian or any such thing. What I am saying is that he acknowledged a Creator-- Prime Mover, God, Nature's God-- whatever you want to call it. And it is from this entity that our (...) (22 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Tribute to Sept 11, 2001
|
|
It has to be said, and both of you have done it with grace, compassion, tolerance and humanity. Hopefully the citizens of the world can do the same. A Canadian sending honours and sympathy, -Gil (...) (22 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Tribute to Sept 11, 2001
|
|
Any tribute to the heroic efforts displayed that day deserves recognition. A very nice display showing the infamous bucket brigade that helped uncover the debris in an effort to find fallen brothers and sisters in humanity. They did this with (...) (22 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Overview of Changes to Legal Rights
|
|
(...) I am curious as to how far along that bill is. I would find it very hard to believe that Congress would pass that. Even if they did, I would find it extremely hard to believe that the Supreme Court would NOT rule it unconstitutional. Blatant (...) (22 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) So stipulated. But the hypothetical loony[1] who lives down the street from me received no such training, but he nonetheless owns a shack full of guns. (...) Oh sure--*now* you clarify... Seriously though, I've never been to clear on why the (...) (22 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) fundamental (...) Let (...) The unabriged 2nd amendment is as follows: A well regulated militia being nessesary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The whole well regulated (...) (22 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) PS I don't think able bodied or male are still legitimate requirements, although they may have made sense back then. (22 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Overview of Changes to Legal Rights
|
|
(URL) particularly heartening. (22 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) John! For pity's sake, read what you're writing! The acknowledgement of the existence of God (or even "a" God) is an explicit endorsement of religion! I don't care if you want to pretend that "it could be *any* God," because you're wrong, (...) (22 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
