Debate : 16820


Off-Topic / Debate / 16820	16819 \| 16821

Subject:	Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Newsgroups:	lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date:	Tue, 2 Jul 2002 18:27:38 GMT
Viewed:	3487 times

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes: <snip> You would be well served not to use "West Wing" as your basis for research, or even for sound bites. It's terribly biased in the statist/socialist direction and the writers are quite skillful at twisting things to their own ends, as they have happily admitted. Think for yourself. Now then, as to this excerpt: "Judge: I would have strong objection, Mr. President, as I like cream as well, but I would have no constitutional basis to strike down the law when you brought your case to the Supreme Court." That is, in my view, not a correct interpretation. See the constitution itself, for example as found here (there are other places), http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.text.html specifically Amendment X "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. " which was expressly put in to address the objections of the "Georgians" referred to in this excerpt: " Sam: In 1787 there was a sizeable block of delagates who were initally opposed to the Bill of Rights. This is what a member of the Georgia delagation had to say by way of opposition, "If we list a set of rights, some fools in the future are going to claim the people are entitled to those rights enumerated and no others..." " You'd have to see the Federalist Papers to determine if they really were Georgians or not, I don't recall. A law preventing cream in coffee is indeed unconstitutional, as are about 98% of the rest of the laws we have nowadays. The mere fact that courts don't find that way doesn't mean that it isn't unconstitutional, just that the constitution has been mostly abrogated.

Message has 2 Replies:

		Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
(...) I've never watched the show, but I'm given to wonder if the people to whom it's marketed are themselves disposed to the sort of government depicted on the small screen. I'm loathe to use the term "statist" since it's become something of a (...) (22 years ago, 2-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Oh I hate when this happens--I had a most beautiful resonse in the making and I accidentally closed explorer!! Grr!!! K, here goes--take 2 Using West Wing for a basis of research on politics is like using Pretty Woman for the basis of reasearch on (...) (22 years ago, 2-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:

		Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Back into the fray (from a much needed absence 'cause I had to re-evaluate the way I come across in my posts...) /America rant on The next time anyone tells me the USofA is the 'free-est' nation on the planet, I'm going to point to this thread (and (...) (22 years ago, 2-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

395 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)

Entire Thread on One Page:: Nested: All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear: All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:: Nested: All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear: All | Brief | Compact

Custom Search