The best thing about Arnold's victory

[slang]

Originally posted by Radar
Their job is to hold laws up to the Constitution to see if they fit.

I completely agree it *was* thier job to do only this. Until we collectively bastardized the whole system.

In addition, I'd like to add that the USC is *****not***** a "living document" in the sense that phrase is used today.

It *is* changeable but only through a constitutional ammendment. In this way, it's living (capable of being changed) but IMO as someone that can read English, the courts do not have the legal authority to interpret it to fit what they think is best. Whats even more irritating now is that the USSC is now using European law for guidance!

The point is lost on the fact that there doesnt seem to be any workable solution to bring us back where we should be. The road back would lead us into an America no one would even recognize, but many of us would greatly appreciate.

[juju]

Originally posted by Undertoad
No, that's me, and I can tell you for absolute certain than CNN was blatantly and annoyingly anti-Arnie from day one.

Originally posted by JeepNGeorge
I refuse to watch that rubbish. Good thing the weekly world sun is still available for all my news sources.

Ha, ha, Undertoad watches CNN!!

[juju]

All communication between humans is subject to interpretation. Even "no" can mean "yes". Words have multiple, sometimes broad definitons, and when you string them together, the potentially different meanings goes up exponentially. Given that all the people who wrote the inital document are dead, <i>someone</i> has to decide which interpretation we go by.

[slang]

I disagree with your specific notion that the USC needs to be interpretted Ju. You already knew that though.

If there was an ammendment that said " you have the right to wear blue shoes" would that need interpretation?


Many words have changed meanings, yes. Many things mean precisely what they say though.

In any case, your still a cool dude (for a guy with long hair) and I dont challenge you to a duel for holding your beliefs.

[Skunks]

(juju)

All communication between humans is subject to interpretation. Even "no" can mean "yes". Words have multiple, sometimes broad definitons, and when you string them together, the potentially different meanings goes up exponentially. Given that all the people who wrote the inital document are dead, someone has to decide which interpretation we go by.

The fuckin' English gave us a faulty language. If the Constitution was translated to Esperanto, we wouldn't have this problem.


In all seriousness, I'm not too worried. He can't go much lower, I gather--they did get rid of the last guy, after all, and if Arnold sucks more, wouldn't he be removed even quicker?

The way I see it, the only reasonable outcomes are:

a) Arnold kicks ass, and everybody loves him for his political skills.
b) Arnold does nothing notable, isn't re-elected, and life goes on.
c) Arnold sucks, and comedians the world over are given an infinite supply of jokes for a few months to a year.
c.2) Voting is reworked to prevent stupid things like this from happening.

I'd be fine with any of the above, with a bit of a leaning toward a) or c.2), as I don't have a TV anymore. (I miss Jon Stewart. -sniff-)

[juju]

Thanks. :)

[Tobiasly]

Originally posted by Radar
90% of Americans can barely read the Constitution let alone comprehend its meaning well enough to make this determination accurately

90% of Americans also think you're full of crap. Of course, I pulled that number out of my ass, but why stop now?

(I'm sure it's much closer to 98%).

[Tobiasly]

Originally posted by slang
If there was an ammendment that said "you have the right to wear blue shoes" would that need interpretation?

Actually, yes. The Constitution also says we have the right to bear arms. Not so cut and dried, is it?

[Elspode]

Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
Hello, Secret Service? Yes, it's Cellar.org, thread "The best thing about Arnold's victory" and the name is Radar, that's R_A_D_A_R. Yes, threatened the President's life. Yes. Very unstable.

We were discussing just this sort of thing at home the other day when our phones were making odd noises (no, not the Constituion...the Constitution makes Radar make odd noises).

What if Raptor caught you saying "President Bush is da Bomb! I live in terror thinking that he might not be re-elected, and I swear to Allah that I'll kill myself if he isn't!?

Maybe if everyone posted, emailed and telephonically spoke this phrase over the next few weeks, we could bring the automatic monitoring systems to their knees?

[Radar]

Hello, Secret Service? Yes, it's Cellar.org, thread "The best thing about Arnold's victory" and the name is Radar, that's R_A_D_A_R. Yes, threatened the President's life. Yes. Very unstable.

Nowhere have I threatened the president. I have suggested an appropriate punishment for a military deserter who later commits treason and endangers the entire world, has Americans killed, or turned into mercenaries, attacks our civil rights, violates the Constitution, etc.

Yes it is. It says in the Constitution that the Supreme Court is supposed to interpret it.

Show me the word "interpret" in the duties of the Supreme Court. The Constitution doesn't require interpretation. It was written in simple English. It isn't ambiguous or vague and it means exactly what it says without exception.

The point is lost on the fact that there doesnt seem to be any workable solution to bring us back where we should be. The road back would lead us into an America no one would even recognize, but many of us would greatly appreciate.

The door is quickly closing for any kind of a peaceful solution. But hopefully we'll be able to return America to a Constitutional republic before blood must be spilled. But either way, America will be returned to a Constitutional government that defends our rights and doesn't attempt to limit them or overstep thier limited authority.

Actually, yes. The Constitution also says we have the right to bear arms. Not so cut and dried, is it?

It's extremely cut and dry. What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" do some people have a problem understanding? How about "congress shall make no law"? Some don't understand that either. Gun ownership is a RIGHT, not a privilige. It's something we're born with. The government doesn't give us rights or have the authority to limit rights. It is only here to defend those rights we're born with.

I like elpsode's plan, and find it funny. It would be nice to get some kind of email campain where people just sprinkle words like "jihad", "allah", "bomb", "nuke", etc. into thier emails, and phone conversations. Or if we all start checking out books about terrorism, bombs making, etc.

[Undertoad]

It's extremely cut and dry. What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" do some people have a problem understanding?

OK:

Nowhere have I threatened the president. I have suggested an appropriate punishment for a military deserter who later commits treason

What part of "Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. " do you not understand?

Show me the word "interpret" in the duties of the Supreme Court.

Article 3, Section 1: The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. ...
Section. 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;...

The courts have the power to Judge. Seems pretty cut n dried.

[juju]

English is not simple, and is always open to interpretation.

What about deadly, radioactive shoes that do nothing in a 2 foot radius, but in a 10 foot radius after that cause terminal cancer? If I painted them blue, should I have a right to wear them? What about millions of little boxes that have a small button on them that, if pressed, would blow up Utah? Should millions of Americans have a right to own those? Should we all have a right to own nuclear missles?

[juju]

In fact, I'd say that "The right to bear arms" is usually interpreted as, "The right to own muskets, or weapons of similar power". Because there is no way in hell that the founding fathers would ever have wanted every American to own a nuclear weapon. You see, we are interpreting what they meant based on their knowledge at the time.

[Griff]

[necessary rant]The further we get, intellectually, from the revolution the more control government will assume. The counter-revolutionary document of 1787 left people remarkably free by todays standards but it was a far cry from what was fought for. In the intervening years we've chosen government power over freedom countless times, like it or not the Constitution became a living document and its original amending process was supplanted by more responsive (to whom?) democratic processes with predicted and predictable results. This is all to get to the point that the revolutionaries would be appalled by the Bill of Rights restrictions but the reactionaries would be proud of their work. What do you suppose the smuggler Hancock would have thought about the idea that his merchantman could only carry muskets? I suspect folks like Hamilton would be very pleased with America as a global mercantilist empire with a stable sheeplike electorate but a visionary like Jefferson might have cause to feel shame for a people who neglect hearth and home to serve our masters view of freedom.[/rant]

I feel better now.

[Radar]

What part of "Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. " do you not understand?

I understand every part of that and Bush is guilty of treason. He has aided our enemies. Let's not even discuss the 40 million he gave to the Taliban 3 months before the September 11th attacks.

Bush has empowered the enemies of the United States through his violations of the Constitution by starting an unprovoked war against a non-threatening, sovereign nation, that had no affiliations with anyone else who had attacked us and he knowingly lied to the American people to do it. Bush has also levied war against the American people and our civil rights. He has placed Americans in danger and violated his oath.

But even if you don't consider this treason, Bush clearly fits into the definition of "traitor", and "military deserter" which are:

Traitor - One who betrays one's country, a cause, or a trust, especially one who commits treason.

Deserter - To abandon (a military post, for example) in violation of orders or an oath

In fact, I'd say that "The right to bear arms" is usually interpreted as, "The right to own muskets, or weapons of similar power". Because there is no way in hell that the founding fathers would ever have wanted every American to own a nuclear weapon.

The founders wanted the American public to have each and every single weapon at thier disposal that the government had. They wanted the people to ALWAYS be able to outgun the government to keep them in check. They would still want it now.