Subject:
|
Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 30 Jul 2004 17:12:43 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2880 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Laswell wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> > I'm not convinced that the enjoyment value of the .debate group is added to
> > when you make statements such as that one, which some may perceive as
> > unnecessarily combative. I suggest you temper your words.
>
> You have an exasperating habit
You have many exasperating habits, but exhaustively enumerating them here is not
likely to be productive. I think you need to get over your notion that I'm out
to persecute you or whatever paranoid notion it is you hold.
> of picking at irrelevent details when debating,
I don't see the detail as irrelevant in this case. I also don't care to, in
normal practice, analyse everything you post because you tend to go on and on
and on, at great length, and it's not a good use of my time to respond point by
point to trivia and irrelevancies. So I select points that I think are important
or relevant.
> and to my eye, the wording of your post suggests that you were doing it once
> again
Or that your paranoia medicine wasn't working.
> (though you didn't pounce on my grammar error, which is a bit surprising).
Not really, if you think about it.
Now that I know that you scored in the top 1/2 percent on your year's version of
the SAT (meaing you did almost as well on the SAT as I did back when I took it),
I'm assuming your spelling and grammatical errors are deliberately introduced
for humorous effect, even when I myself don't get the joke, rather than unknown
defects that make your arguments somewhat less polished (the most that an error
does, it does not refute the argument per se, and I have never ever asserted
otherwise) or make you look less learned.
Since you didn't get the humor in my spotting and noting your errors, (remember,
if you will, that one of my early taglines was "I never make misteaks"... think
about the humor value there if you would, those of us who have the right
attitude have had, over the years, a lot of fun riffing on each other's errors)
but took them as serious attacks, there's no humor there to be had so why
bother?
I'm done riffing on *your* spelling or grammar errors. I, however, reserve the
right to riff on errors of other participants who have in the past demonstrated
an appreciation for the riff, just as I expect they will riff on mine when
there's comedic value to be had. When riffed on by people who don't have
demonstrated chips on their shoulder regarding me, I take them as lighthearted
good humor, as do they in turn.
> When I say that if it's not unconstitutional for a state to pass a certain law,
> if you reply to that saying "except when it's unconstitutional", it's entirely
> redundant, unless you are pointing out specific grounds to show how it is
> unconstitutional after all. Which you didn't.
If that was what I was asserting, you'd be correct. But my assertion was
centered around the hierarchy of rights here. The people's rights are primary.
State constitutions trump state laws, and federal constitutions trump federal
laws, state constitutions and state laws. Specifically, if a prohibition on
polygamy is in fact Federally unconstitutional then the Utah prohibition in
their constitution is null and void.
> > I'm comfortable with the extraction I did and with the analysis I performed.
>
> Once again, I assert that your post, as presented, merely echoed my own. It
> reminds me of that episode of Futurama where two politicians are debating
> against each other using exactly the same platform ("Your $0.03 tax goes too
> far!" "And your $0.03 tax doesn't go too far enough!"). It's funny in a comedy
> show, but ever so much less so in real life.
One of your exasperating habits is how you diverge into TV or movie trivia at
the slightest provocation. Futurama has nothing to do with this and further, the
analogy is inapt.
> > I hold that a thing doesn't have to be explicitly mentioned by name in order
> > for it to be covered or treatable.
>
> It still has to tie into something that is mentioned.
See this post: http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=24352 ... Marriage
does so tie into enumerated rights.
> > For example there are no explicit mentions of telephones in the
> > constitution, yet there have been rulings about the constitutionality of
> > wiretapping, the constitutionality of regulations on telephone companies and
> > a host of other topics related to telephones. Ditto a large number of other
> > things, and concepts (privacy for example, there's no explicit privacy
> > right, only a mention of search and seizure, a mention of secure in their
> > effects and so forth) not mentioned in the constitution explicitly.
>
> Likewise the USPS gets to use airplanes to ship mail under the law that permits
> them to set up "roads" for postal purposes. Yes, I realize that laws, as
> written, are sometimes bent so you can follow the intent instead of the letter.
That is now how I'd characterise the process.
> > I hold that marriage is a type of association and a type of contract and
> > therefore need not be explicitly mentioned in order to be a protected
> > activity that people can engage or not engage in, as they choose. Finding
> > otherwise, in my view, is unconstitutional, barring an amendment that
> > explicitly modifies it.
>
> I've stated before that you are free to call yourself married, you are free to
> feel that you are married, and you are even free to negotiate your own civil
> contract to say that you are married (that's where palimony comes from). But
> that doesn't mean the state has to recognize it as Marriage. Marriage is a
> confused battleground because it's coming from two directions. From the one
> side it's a social/religous concept that says any two people (often specified to
> be man/woman) can bind themselves together for the purposes of maintaining an
> exclusive relationship with each other. From the other side it's a
> state-granted title that gives you various political and economic advantages and
> disadvantages.
And this is where the State (state or feds) cannot discriminate, to select some
relationships as better than others. For to do so violates the equal protection
clause.
> They have every right to specify conditions for state-recognized
> marriage. If the state wants to define it as a man/woman pairing {[for the
> purposes of assigning rights and duties to the married couple]}, they have every
> right to do so.
I do not think they do. You have asserted it over and over but you have not
demonstrated it to my satisfaction.
> Just as how you can call yourself a business, but it doesn't
> mean anything in the eyes of the state (except perhaps a legal violation by
> operating without a license and such) until you submit to the conditions
> outlined for a specific class of business and declare yourself to be one. Or
> would you likewise assert that the laws governing various business classes are
> unconstitutional because it's fully within your rights to set up a business
> contract according to your own terms?
Not relevant to the argument at hand. If you want to debate it, start a new
thread.
> > See above, it is, in my view, a class of activity already covered by various
> > provisions of the Bill of Rights. The intent of the FFs, after all, was to
> > preserve most freedom of action at the individual citizen level, not to give
> > states all powers not explicitly enumerated to individuals or the federal
> > goverment.
>
> That may have been the intent, but it's set up as a descending heirarchy, from
> federal, to state, to local, to individual.
No, in fact the hierarchy goes the other way, the rights of the individual are
paramount and only where explicit powers are given is it different. Do you
dispute the writings in the Federalist Papers that deal with this point?
> Your rights as an individual are
> protected only by what is specifically mentioned (or at least inferred) by the
> US constitution.
No again, The rights of the individual are not limited to those mentioned or
inferred. The 9th specifically addresses this point.
> And {state-recognized marriage} is bestowed as a perq, not
> imposed as a restriction, so it's exempt by virtue of the fact that it's not
> prohibited in any way by the US constitution. They can require that you recite
> your vows while performing the Chicken Dance under a blue moon that falls on a
> Tuesday in order to qualify for state-recognized marriage if they feel like it,
> because state-recognized marriage isn't just a contract between you and your
> spouse. It's a 3-way contract between you, your spouse, and the state.
And therefore cannot impose any particular requirements or else it's
discriminatory. All this is plowed ground as far as I am concerned.
> And as
> a party to the contract, they get to impose terms and conditions as well.
No, they do not, constitutionally, get to impose terms and conditions. They may
be defacto doing so but that doesn't make it constitutional.
> > Not to my satisfaction it hasn't been so established. I think you're
> > asserting things that aren't necessarily true.
>
> Read the previous paragraph, and it should help clear things up for you.
Nope, sorry. They are just as crystal clear as before. What *is* becoming clear
to me is that you're still as confused as before, but that it may be a lost
cause to try to convince you differently, just as it is with John. At least John
is fun to debate, fun to work with and fun to be with, though.
> > I've already addressed how the constitution applies to marriage upthread and
> > it wasn't challenged except by John, and not very effectively by him at that.
>
> I'm through with doing your research for you.
Aside from the attack nature of this comment...
I don't think you even necessarily do your *own* research in every case. Nor
does everyone else, nor should they. To insist on research misses the flavour
here, which is intended to be much more light hearted than you seem to think.
In this case, though, it was in a post in the most recent large gay marriage
thread but one, rather than this thread, which I misremembered, I thought it was
this one.
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=24352
> I tried that on the NASA/FAA/OCST
> bit, and while my findings were quite the opposite of your own, you neglected to
> provide any examples to the contrary.
That debate is not relevant to this one unless you're engaged in an adhominem
here. I would also dispute that just writing a bunch of stuff over and over, as
you did there, makes it true. Nor does getting the last word because you've
exhausted everyone, mean you are correct.
> If you're the person who's replying, it's
> your responsibility to either restate, link to, or at the very least provide
> reasonable directions on how to access any information that you want to be
> considered as part of your current arguement. You chose not to even mention it
> when first replying to me, much less give any indication of where to look for
> it.
Since I thought it was in this very tree, it seemed reasonable to me that no
more specific reference was necessary because I was assuming that you were
conversant with what was said by others in this tree.
But it wasn't. It was in a previous tree (as it happens, not much over a month
old, but a lot does go on here). Sorry. Perhaps my memory isn't as good as yours
as to what was where.
> > > > > you can be prosecuted and sentanced under that law.
> > > >
> > > > Defacto, yes. It still may be unconstitutional though.
> > > >
> > > > Doesn't mean it's necessarily constitutional or un, just that it may not
> > > > yet have been found so.
> >
> > I would invite you to read that bit again.
>
> I read it correctly the first time. I'll remind you that I didn't say anything
> about it being constitutional or not. I just said that as long as a law against
> it is on the books, it's illegal. And that holds true until such time as the
> law is struck from the books (at which point it's retroactively declared to be
> not-illegal). It's entirely possible that a flagrantly unconstitutional law
> might be left alone by the Judiciary (consider how long the House Unamerican
> committee was given free reign).
>
> > Yes, for it to be struck. No, for it to be unconstitutional.
> >
> > The point I think I've failed to make clearly here is that in my view it
> > isn't the striking down that makes a previously constitutional thing now un.
> > That's merely the recognition of the fact, not the fact itself. The sky is
> > blue most mornings even before I open my eyes and look at it and it's not
> > the act of my looking that makes it blue.
>
> Again, I was speaking solely to the legality of the action according to the
> specific law, not the constitutionality of that law. Until it's struck from the
> books, it is Law, and it can (and probably will) be enforced. You just have to
> hope that the first time it hits the court system it will get struck down for
> being unconstitutional, and the individual who first stumbles over it (by
> accident or intent) isn't unduly punished beyond what's already had to happen to
> get it that far (such as having to sit in jail until the case is dismissed).
>
> The danger is that the Judiciary will decide that it is, indeed, constitutional
> (which is part of why I don't advocate breaking laws specifically to prove them
> to be unconstitutional).
>
> > More specifically it isn't red until just before I glance upwards either.
>
> Sometimes it is.
Not for the purposes of the analogy.
> There's even an old sailor's ditty that mentions it.
Here we go again with irrelevant trivia. Just focus on the example I gave,
please.
> For the
> sake of your point, however, let's pretend you said green instead of red, since
> that's the one color that I've never seen the sky change to (rainbows don't
> count).
More irrelevant trivia, which disguises that you either didn't get, or didn't
choose to address, the point I made. As is (another one of your exasperating
habits) so often the case.
> > You can say that something is defacto constitutional prior to being struck if
> > you like, I suppose, but if it is struck, it never really WAS constitutional.
>
> I could (1st Amendment, after all), but I didn't.
Ok, then it's unconstitutional all along. Another exasperating habit, you're
just messing around instead of addressing the point.
> > This breaks down a bit in that the supremes aren't perfect.
>
> This breaks down a lot in that noone is perfect.
This discussion breaks down a lot in that no one is as perfect as you, I guess.
Or thinks they are and wants everyone to know, anyway, or thinks they have so
much vital trivia to share on every topic imaginable,. (two more exasperating
habits)
I'll tell you what, though, if you lay off the personal attacks agaist me, drop
the chip on your shoulder that you seem to carry around which prevents you from
actually internalising what I say or admitting that my points are valid when
they are, and in general behave more civilly and stop baiting me, this will be
the last I'll speak of your many exasperating habits.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
200 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
|
|
|
|
