|
|
| Author |
Message |
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
 Posted: 12/11/03 - 13:58 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Akronn wrote: | Once again WNWS demonstrates a clear lack of understanding of the issue. Comparing consensual anal **** between two men to theft, rape, public indecency, etc. is mind-boggling, sad, and hilarious all in one.
Just take a wild stab at why, WNWS. 3 or 4 others have already said it, and it surely sunk in by now, hasn't it?
Oh well, I couldn't help but interject this last little bit.
(and ATM, his argument is basically Judge Scalia's... reason for reason) |
Scalia > O'Conner. You find a lot of obvious things mind-boggling but fail to provide an explanation. Your capability to reason is surprisingly limited considering mommy and daddy spent all that money on private schools for you.
"You are a bigot! There is no reason my harmless public nudity can be illegal due to my protection under the 14th amendment. I am an exhibitionist! It's simply who I am! Bigot!"
I'm still surprised you can't tell the difference between and action and a physical trait. Oh well. I guess Mtv got to you over the years.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
 |
Akronn
Guest
|
|
Posted: 12/11/03 - 14:03 Post subject:
|
|
|
LMAO @ WNWS
Public nudity != consensual anal ****
LMAO once more for good measure.
Good day to you, sir. 
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 12/11/03 - 14:33 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Akronn wrote: | LMAO @ WNWS
Public nudity != consensual anal ****
LMAO once more for good measure.
Good day to you, sir. ;) |
But how is it different? Did you fail at SAT analogies? Nobody is getting hurt. Some people find public nudity offensive. Some people find homosexuality offensive. How is consentual anal **** different if between a curious 10 year old who wants candy and an adult and between adults. How can polygamy (a case which has already been taken up thanks to the sodomy ruling) be illegal if anal **** cannot? What you leftists refuse to admit is that homosexuality requires action. Actions can be regulated by law. Oh wait...privacy right. Where in the constitution is the word "privacy?" Or is that just another invention by leftists?
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Fabulez
Luke Warm
Joined: 11 Nov 2002
Posts: 437
Location: up in here
|
|
Posted: 12/11/03 - 14:39 Post subject:
|
|
|
| WheresNWS wrote: | | Oh wait...privacy right. Where in the constitution is the word "privacy?" Or is that just another invention by leftists? |
The fourth amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..."
But that's really not the point. I was going to yell at WheresNWS when I read the first part of this thread, but then I saw everyone yelling at him and while his specific examples may be yell-worthy, his general point is completely valid. The judicial branch of the federal government wields a giant amount of power, and wields it for the most part arbitrarily. "Interpreting" the Constitution is not an exact science, far from it, it's mostly just political jockeying. Many majority opinions are rationalizations of views of morality shoe-horned into constitutional justifications. So are many dissenting opinions.
BTW, I bet if you read Texas' Constitution (I never have) it makes virtually the same guarantees that the US Constitution does. Most states' do.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Akronn
Guest
|
|
Posted: 12/11/03 - 14:48 Post subject:
|
|
|
You just don't get it.
Where in the Constitution does the word 'marriage' appear? The right to buy imports? The right to have children? The right to eat food? The Constitution isn't about what people can do, it's about what government can do.
Look at Amendment IX:
| Quote: | | The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. |
Look at Amendment X:
| Quote: | | 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. |
Now these two amendments clearly indicate that the government has no power to tell people what to do except in areas specifically authorized in the Constitution. That means it has no right to tell people whether or not they can engage in homosexual acts, what marriage means to us, to invade our privacy, etc.
Now I've already explained to you what's wrong with the Texas sodomy law (twice), so I'm not bothering again. But remember: it's perfectly legal for me to f**k your pooch in Texas. Can I do it in public? No. Can I do it in my basement? Yes.
So before ya think the Texas law's shit doesn't stink, think again.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 12/11/03 - 14:53 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Akronn wrote: | You just don't get it.
Where in the Constitution does the word 'marriage' appear? The right to buy imports? The right to have children? The right to eat food? The Constitution isn't about what people can do, it's about what government can do.
Look at Amendment IX:
| Quote: | | The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. |
Look at Amendment X:
| Quote: | | 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. |
Now these two amendments clearly indicate that the government has no power to tell people what to do except in areas specifically authorized in the Constitution. That means it has no right to tell people whether or not they can engage in homosexual acts, what marriage means to us, to invade our privacy, etc.
Now I've already explained to you what's wrong with the Texas sodomy law (twice), so I'm not bothering again. But remember: it's perfectly legal for me to f**k your pooch in Texas. Can I do it in public? No. Can I do it in my basement? Yes.
So before ya think the Texas law's shit doesn't stink, think again. |
Federal power...federal power....Texas has the right to make such laws. Do you understand what federalism is?
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
Posted: 12/11/03 - 14:54 Post subject:
|
|
|
Nothing has changed since the last time I posted in this thread.
NWS is still correct.
You might not like his examples:)
Too bad, he is still correct.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Akronn
Guest
|
|
Posted: 12/11/03 - 14:57 Post subject:
|
|
|
The Texas sodomy violated the 14th Amendment, WNWS. Hence, it's unconstituonal and rendered invaild.
(that's three times now) 
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 12/11/03 - 15:12 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Akronn wrote: | The Texas sodomy violated the 14th Amendment, WNWS. Hence, it's unconstituonal and rendered invaild.
(that's three times now) :roll: |
As Kbarr pointed out. I'm still correct. The law applied equally. If a heterosexual got really drunk had anal **** with his buddy, he would still apply. So no, it does not violate the 14th amendment. The only way it would be a violation is if this were not the case or if homosexuality itself were outlawed. You're trying to make homosexuality a trait. In reality it is much more. Just like exhibitionism requires one to expose oneself or polygamy requires marrying more than one woman. All of these things can be outlawed by states as long as the law applies to everyone...which it does.
edit: 3 times, now. So far your only justification for your defense is the emoticon rolling its eyes.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
hitachi
RealPoor Sensei
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 1508
Location: Maryland
|
|
Posted: 12/11/03 - 15:22 Post subject:
|
|
|
i dunno, ive changed my mind concerning the sodomy ruling. if it has applied to male/female as well as male/male your argument would definately apply.
your other two examples i still agree with.
displaying the 10 commandments isnt an establishment of religion.
and i dont understand how anyone can argue that placing your political opinions in an ad even if it is to sway votes (what the f**k else would it be for?) isnt within the rights of free speech.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Akronn
Guest
|
|
Posted: 12/11/03 - 15:32 Post subject:
|
|
|
Brief history lesson for ya, since it seems you're refusing to sway from Scalia-mode.
Prior to 1974, oral and anal **** was illegal for all Texans. However, after the criminal code was revised that year, heterosexual couples were written out of the law. This left gay and l*****n couples to shoulder the ban alone, but oddly the 1974 revision removed criminal penalties on private bestiality. As the law now stands, a gay man or woman can have legal **** with an animal, but not with his or her life partner.
So now not only does the Texas sodomy law violate the state's very own constitution (protecting the right to privacy much like the federal Constitution does), but also runs counter to the equal rights amendment which bans **** discrimination. As rewritten, it's clearly singling out gay couples.
The whole situation is hilarious really. When asked about the Texas sodomy law, then Governor George W. Bush responded that it's not so much a practical tool of law enforcement, but really an 'important symbol of traditional values.' Really, George? f**k your dog much?
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 12/11/03 - 15:44 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Akronn wrote: | Brief history lesson for ya, since it seems you're refusing to sway from Scalia-mode.
Prior to 1974, oral and anal **** was illegal for all Texans. However, after the criminal code was revised that year, heterosexual couples were written out of the law. This left gay and l*****n couples to shoulder the ban alone, but oddly the 1974 revision removed criminal penalties on private bestiality. As the law now stands, a gay man or woman can have legal **** with an animal, but not with his or her life partner.
So now not only does the Texas sodomy law violate the state's very own constitution (protecting the right to privacy much like the federal Constitution does), but also runs counter to the equal rights amendment which bans **** discrimination. As rewritten, it's clearly singling out gay couples.
The whole situation is hilarious really. When asked about the Texas sodomy law, then Governor George W. Bush responded that it's not so much a practical tool of law enforcement, but really an 'important symbol of traditional values.' Really, George? f**k your dog much? |
Once again you skirt the issue. If a heterosexual man gets drunk and f***s his buddy in the ass, he is subject to the same penalty as a homosexual who f***s his buddy in the ass. The other laws are irrelevant, but I expect that from you. The fact it, Texas reserves to have those have those laws because they apply to everyone equally. Unless of course you want polygamy, public nudity, etc... protected by the constitution. I'm just beginning to think you're just a perve.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
scrotum
Toomuchtimeonhands
Joined: 13 Oct 2002
Posts: 828
|
|
Posted: 12/11/03 - 16:46 Post subject:
|
|
|
this "o holy" constitution sounds like a great thing.
here in norway, we have a thing called "freedom of speech". I thought you guys had that too? hmmph, that sucks :/
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 12/11/03 - 16:54 Post subject:
|
|
|
| scrotum wrote: | this "o holy" constitution sounds like a great thing.
here in norway, we have a thing called "freedom of speech". I thought you guys had that too? hmmph, that sucks :/ |
I thought we had it, too. 
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
themy
Sir Postalot
Joined: 14 Oct 2002
Posts: 1153
|
|
Posted: 12/11/03 - 19:41 Post subject:
|
|
|
your version of equal is clouded NWS and kbarr too.
I have one question for you, why the hell do you care what somebody does in their private lives, in their own house, on their own time??? Who can really say that they shouldn't be allowed to do as they please without a stupid law made by the palce where George W was raised. We all think you people down there are a bunch of redneck fools who try to get into lives of other people, and you have now shown that to be true. It does not concern you bigots what a man does in his private life wether it be with another man or so forth. The fact that a man can give a woman oral **** yet another woman could not give the same woman oral **** is in fact unconstitutional. No matter how much you site the 10th ammend it does not EVER give the states the rights to limit the freedoms of a person in this great country of ours. So to all you fools who believe that Texas should be allowed to intrude into the lives of its citizens i tell you to go legally f**k a cow, you guys got a lot of those there.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 12/11/03 - 19:48 Post subject:
|
|
|
| themy wrote: | your version of equal is clouded NWS and kbarr too.
I have one question for you, why the hell do you care what somebody does in their private lives, in their own house, on their own time??? Who can really say that they shouldn't be allowed to do as they please without a stupid law made by the palce where George W was raised. We all think you people down there are a bunch of redneck fools who try to get into lives of other people, and you have now shown that to be true. It does not concern you bigots what a man does in his private life wether it be with another man or so forth. The fact that a man can give a woman oral **** yet another woman could not give the same woman oral **** is in fact unconstitutional. No matter how much you site the 10th ammend it does not EVER give the states the rights to limit the freedoms of a person in this great country of ours. So to all you fools who believe that Texas should be allowed to intrude into the lives of its citizens i tell you to go legally f**k a cow, you guys got a lot of those there. |
Kbarr's from New York, moron. I'm from Arizona. Of course states have the rights to have such laws. Why do you think prostitution is illegal in 49 states, and that polygamy is illegal in all 50. Why do you think looking at kiddie porn is illegal in all 50 states. It's not unconstitutional to regulate behavior via the law and it never has been. If the law applies equally to everyone, then it is in perfect compliance with the 14th amendment. If it were illegal to "be" gay then I would of course say that's in contrast with the 14th amendment. However, the law specified an illegal act and made it illegal for a male to commit sodomy to another male.. It doesn't matter if he is a drunken heterosexual fratboy or if he's gay. Get it yet?
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
themy
Sir Postalot
Joined: 14 Oct 2002
Posts: 1153
|
|
Posted: 12/11/03 - 19:50 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
your answer was a very nice round about, please answer what i said...
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 12/11/03 - 19:52 Post subject:
|
|
|
| themy wrote: | | your answer was a very nice round about, please answer what i said... |
Answer what? I didn't see any question marks. 
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Clevinger
Guest
|
|
Posted: 12/11/03 - 20:36 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
themy closes in on bling bling with each post he makes
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Krumble
Toomuchtimeonhands
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 771
|
|
Posted: 12/11/03 - 22:01 Post subject:
|
|
|
| WheresNWS wrote: | | This is all quite simple. Their rulings are not based on the constitution and often times go directly against it. The constitution is not complex. It is intentionally simple. Yet the courts routinely decide to completely ignore the text of the constitution in favor of personal prejudice. We have 5 people out of nearly 300 million setting all of our laws, now. |
You act like the Constitution is infallible. What about my right to have my slaves returned to me when they escape to another state? Oh, damn, my God-given right to ownership of black people was taken away.
How about the 'right' of Presidents to serve as many terms as they damn well please? After all, if it is the will of the people...
So what if Constitutional change is initiated by 1 person, 5 people, or 100? If you like the word oligarchy so much, tell me how an oligarchy of 5 people differs from an 'oligarchy' of several hundred Senators/Representatives. How often do you, yourself, directly elect the President of the United States?
Start writing these retarded arguments down on blank paper and publish a book or something, just stop posting them to realpoor pls thx.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 12/12/03 - 00:23 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Krumble wrote: | | WheresNWS wrote: | | This is all quite simple. Their rulings are not based on the constitution and often times go directly against it. The constitution is not complex. It is intentionally simple. Yet the courts routinely decide to completely ignore the text of the constitution in favor of personal prejudice. We have 5 people out of nearly 300 million setting all of our laws, now. |
You act like the Constitution is infallible. What about my right to have my slaves returned to me when they escape to another state? Oh, damn, my God-given right to ownership of black people was taken away.
How about the 'right' of Presidents to serve as many terms as they damn well please? After all, if it is the will of the people...
So what if Constitutional change is initiated by 1 person, 5 people, or 100? If you like the word oligarchy so much, tell me how an oligarchy of 5 people differs from an 'oligarchy' of several hundred Senators/Representatives. How often do you, yourself, directly elect the President of the United States?
Start writing these retarded arguments down on blank paper and publish a book or something, just stop posting them to realpoor pls thx. |
LOL...did you just say you don't mind a single person changing the constitution???
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Krumble
Toomuchtimeonhands
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 771
|
|
Posted: 12/12/03 - 00:52 Post subject:
|
|
|
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=initiate
If you need help with any of the following words: to, set, going, by, taking, the, first, or step, let me know.
We also aren't talking about any actual 'change' in the text of the Constitution here, but rather an interpretation of the written text to arrive at the solution to a new issue. In the Supreme Court's case, this new interpretation becomes precedent and as good as law, but does not change the Constitution. When you consider this fact, the Constitution has been 'changed' many, many times by individuals and small groups. Thomas Jefferson and the Louisiana Purchase? Hell, FDR single handedly redefined the role of the President.
Why is it only when the actions of the Court threaten to hurt religion's grip on America do you get your panties in a wad? Publish a book if you are so hard up about it, seriously. I'll buy the first 10 copies. Failing that, accept that nobody on this board cares enough to read your 10th thread on the subject and stop being a whiny little b***h about it.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 12/12/03 - 01:04 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Krumble wrote: | http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=initiate
If you need help with any of the following words: to, set, going, by, taking, the, first, or step, let me know.
We also aren't talking about any actual 'change' in the text of the Constitution here, but rather an interpretation of the written text to arrive at the solution to a new issue. In the Supreme Court's case, this new interpretation becomes precedent and as good as law, but does not change the Constitution. When you consider this fact, the Constitution has been 'changed' many, many times by individuals and small groups. Thomas Jefferson and the Louisiana Purchase? Hell, FDR single handedly redefined the role of the President.
Why is it only when the actions of the Court threaten to hurt religion's grip on America do you get your panties in a wad? Publish a book if you are so hard up about it, seriously. I'll buy the first 10 copies. Failing that, accept that nobody on this board cares enough to read your 10th thread on the subject and stop being a whiny little b***h about it. |
lol...dumbfuck. Justices are directly going in opposition to the text of the constitution. Constitutional cannot be honestly interpreted by any educated person to mean what they "interpret" them to mean.
And if you don't care....why did you just spend the time typing over 300 words on the matter?
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Krumble
Toomuchtimeonhands
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 771
|
|
Posted: 12/12/03 - 01:20 Post subject:
|
|
|
| WheresNWS wrote: | | Justices are directly going in opposition to the text of the constitution. |
Please quote the exact passage where the Constitution states that federal employees are allowed to erect monuments of the 10 Commandments on federal property.
| WheresNWS wrote: | | Constitutional cannot be honestly interpreted by any educated person to mean what they "interpret" them to mean. |
What the f**k? The first sentence was bad, this one is unreadable. To quote Paden, "would you mind cleaning this up a bit?"
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
Posted: 12/12/03 - 01:22 Post subject:
|
|
|
On my ticket, NWS has won all 10 rounds so far.
I forgot, is this a 12 round fight or a 15 round one?
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Krumble
Toomuchtimeonhands
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 771
|
|
Posted: 12/12/03 - 01:38 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
Better idea: sticky this link and save NWS the time it takes to create a post on the same damn topic every other week.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Krumble
Toomuchtimeonhands
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 771
|
|
Posted: 12/12/03 - 01:39 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Kbarr wrote: | On my ticket, NWS has won all 10 rounds so far.
I forgot, is this a 12 round fight or a 15 round one? |
Glad you cleared that up for us.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
ATM Banana
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 02 Jan 2003
Posts: 8575
|
|
Posted: 12/12/03 - 02:01 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Kbarr wrote: | Nothing has changed since the last time I posted in this thread.
NWS is still correct.
You might not like his examples:)
Too bad, he is still correct. |
you're so ignorant.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
themy
Sir Postalot
Joined: 14 Oct 2002
Posts: 1153
|
|
Posted: 12/12/03 - 02:47 Post subject:
|
|
|
| WheresNWS wrote: | | themy wrote: | | your answer was a very nice round about, please answer what i said... |
Answer what? I didn't see any question marks. |
| Quote: | | I have one question for you, why the hell do you care what somebody does in their private lives, in their own house, on their own time??? |
right there, you can't miss that ;p
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 12/12/03 - 02:54 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Krumble wrote: | | WheresNWS wrote: | | Justices are directly going in opposition to the text of the constitution. |
Please quote the exact passage where the Constitution states that federal employees are allowed to erect monuments of the 10 Commandments on federal property.
| WheresNWS wrote: | | Constitutional cannot be honestly interpreted by any educated person to mean what they "interpret" them to mean. |
What the f**k? The first sentence was bad, this one is unreadable. To quote Paden, "would you mind cleaning this up a bit?" |
They weren't federal employees, d*****t. It was the Alabama supreme court...as in state court. State employees. And the purpose of the bill of rights is to limit power, not dispense it. But I will tell you specifically where the federal courts were constitutionally limited from ruling in this case, but did so anyway.
1st amendment: congress may not establish a religion. State constitutions decide what they do from there.
10th amendment: State powers not restricted by the constitution are given to the states.
And, yes, that sentence was padenesque. When I'm not paying attention, I'll do that. It should read: "The Constitution cannot be honestly interpreted by any educated person to mean what these justices "interpret" it to mean."
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
