|
|
| Author |
Message |
quotison
RealPoor Sensei
Joined: 13 Oct 2002
Posts: 1594
|
 Posted: 12/11/03 - 02:06 Post subject:
|
|
|
| WheresNWS wrote: |
4. There is no constitutional restriction of religion at the state level.
5. A justice in the Alabama supreme court put up the 10 commandments and nobody compained at the state level.
6. A federal court rules that the monument must be removed despite the fact the constitution only says congress shall not establish religion and this was done at the state level. |
Err, back to amendment XIV, section 1:
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States
If citizens have the right not to have congress not establish a religion on them, they they also have the right for the state to not establish a religion on them.
I think the only valid argument against that SC decision is that a judge merely putting the 10 commandments up for display is not an establishment of religion by the state, its just a decoration. I don't think its a state's rights issue.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
 |
themy
Sir Postalot
Joined: 14 Oct 2002
Posts: 1153
|
|
Posted: 12/11/03 - 02:07 Post subject:
|
|
|
hmm anyone else sick of trying to teach an idiot how our system works while he keeps asking for a quote form the constitution and there are at least 8 here????
seriously NWS
| Quote: | | Can I dump radiocative waste in my house that is in the middle of a city? No. |
this infringes on others rights and also harms the environment, this is why you can't do it.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 12/11/03 - 02:08 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Akronn wrote: | | WheresNWS wrote: | | The law was same-**** sodomy. If you read the 14th amendment, it makes no guarantee that Akronn claims. It's also not discriminatory because the law applied to both heterosexual and homosexual men. |
Heh, the Texas DA tries to argue this by saying that two homosexuals caught doing homosexual things in this case may not actually be homosexual. However, Texas law expressly applies to men performing homesexual acts... or in other words: homosexual men. Texas is one of four contiguous states which criminalize certain **** activities by same-**** couples which are legal when performed by a man and women
And for those of you scoring at home, the applicable portion of the 14th Amendment: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Again, the Supreme Court properly found Texas' sodomy law unconstitutional. There's no agenda here. |
This goes back to the whole issue of homosexuality being a behavior...not a trait. It is therefore regulatable. That is equivalent to saying, "I am a thief, therefore laws that make stealing illegal violate the equal protection clause."
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Akronn
Guest
|
|
Posted: 12/11/03 - 02:09 Post subject:
|
|
|
| themy wrote: | | hmm anyone else sick of trying to teach an idiot how our system works while he keeps asking for a quote form the constitution and there are at least 8 here???? |
Yes. I've made two posts in this thread and that's all for me.
Scalia got owned with the same argument WNWS is trying to use and there's no point in me re-inventing the wheel here.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 12/11/03 - 02:10 Post subject:
|
|
|
| quotison wrote: | | WheresNWS wrote: |
4. There is no constitutional restriction of religion at the state level.
5. A justice in the Alabama supreme court put up the 10 commandments and nobody compained at the state level.
6. A federal court rules that the monument must be removed despite the fact the constitution only says congress shall not establish religion and this was done at the state level. |
Err, back to amendment XIV, section 1:
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States
If citizens have the right not to have congress not establish a religion on them, they they also have the right for the state to not establish a religion on them.
I think the only valid argument against that SC decision is that a judge merely putting the 10 commandments up for display is not an establishment of religion by the state, its just a decoration. I don't think its a state's rights issue. |
I agree with this, but each state has its own constitution that handles this. It is a state's rights issue, because a state has the right to legislate religion as it sees fit. The Alabama courts decided that this monument was inline with the Alabama constitution.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 12/11/03 - 02:11 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Akronn wrote: | | themy wrote: | | hmm anyone else sick of trying to teach an idiot how our system works while he keeps asking for a quote form the constitution and there are at least 8 here???? |
Yes. I've made two posts in this thread and that's all for me.
Scalia got owned with the same argument WNWS is trying to use and there's no point in me re-inventing the wheel here. |
Scalia respects the constitution. That is not being "owned." That is following the rule of law.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
themy
Sir Postalot
Joined: 14 Oct 2002
Posts: 1153
|
|
Posted: 12/11/03 - 02:13 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
yet you do not respect other's rights?
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 12/11/03 - 02:13 Post subject:
|
|
|
| themy wrote: | hmm anyone else sick of trying to teach an idiot how our system works while he keeps asking for a quote form the constitution and there are at least 8 here????
seriously NWS
| Quote: | | Can I dump radiocative waste in my house that is in the middle of a city? No. |
this infringes on others rights and also harms the environment, this is why you can't do it. |
I guess that means you give up since you have no argument. Everything you've said so far has no basis in the consitution, even though the supreme court ruled on these as constitutional cases. That was obviously an extreme example. here's another one...public intoxication. "I am an alcoholic. Therefore laws that prohibit public intoxication violate the equal protection clause."
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 12/11/03 - 02:16 Post subject:
|
|
|
| themy wrote: | | yet you do not respect other's rights? |
What rights?
Laws on public nudity?
"I am an exhibitionist. Therefore any law that prohibits public nudity is a violation of the equal protection clause."
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
themy
Sir Postalot
Joined: 14 Oct 2002
Posts: 1153
|
|
Posted: 12/11/03 - 02:17 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
dude you are seriously stupid, if you actually read crap in this thread you would see an argument. You are the one with no argument whatsoever all you do is say no that's not right you have no argument let me go google up a states rights thing and only say that 50 times in 1 post.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
themy
Sir Postalot
Joined: 14 Oct 2002
Posts: 1153
|
|
Posted: 12/11/03 - 02:19 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
being nude in public or **** in public violates another's rights. the right to not see your fat ass naked or your small d**k inside your fat wife's ass. cause who the hell would want to be walking down the street and seeing that in public? that's called infringing on another's rights to have a peaceful stroll at night.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 12/11/03 - 02:21 Post subject:
|
|
|
| themy wrote: | | dude you are seriously stupid, if you actually read crap in this thread you would see an argument. You are the one with no argument whatsoever all you do is say no that's not right you have no argument let me go google up a states rights thing and only say that 50 times in 1 post. |
Actually the only searches I've done so far was for an exact quote on the first amendment and a link to "BOWERS v. HARDWICK". My argument is very simple as I stated very early on. I referenced the unconstitutionalities of these rulings by proving excerpts from the constitution. I asked you to defend the supposed constitutionality of those rulings with quotes, but you failed to provide any (because they don't exist). The other arguments are just tangents away from the obvious failings of the supreme court.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 12/11/03 - 02:23 Post subject:
|
|
|
| themy wrote: | | being nude in public or **** in public violates another's rights. the right to not see your fat ass naked or your small d**k inside your fat wife's ass. cause who the hell would want to be walking down the street and seeing that in public? that's called infringing on another's rights to have a peaceful stroll at night. |
"My nudity does not cause unrest! I am breaking no laws other than being myself! I am damaging no property! I can't help it if people don't accept me for who I am! It's not my fault they find me repulsive! This is a clear violation of the 14th amendment!"
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
themy
Sir Postalot
Joined: 14 Oct 2002
Posts: 1153
|
|
Posted: 12/11/03 - 02:30 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
sorry but once again if you look up you will see many quotes granting the Supreme court the power to rule on those proceedings. if you cannot see this then why should we sit here typing all this crap if you neglect to read what anyone has wrote in these last 2 pages that explain the whole thing? go back read the arguments then post again please
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 12/11/03 - 02:33 Post subject:
|
|
|
| themy wrote: | | sorry but once again if you look up you will see many quotes granting the Supreme court the power to rule on those proceedings. if you cannot see this then why should we sit here typing all this crap if you neglect to read what anyone has wrote in these last 2 pages that explain the whole thing? go back read the arguments then post again please |
Really? I didn't see a single one. I saw lots of bs about pushing your definition of justice on other people, but nothing from the constitution that would be the basis for these rulings of unconstitutionality.
"I went into the court house for a speeding ticket and they kicked me out just because I was naked! I can't help being an exhibitionist! That's just me! This is a violation of the 14th amendment!"
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
quotison
RealPoor Sensei
Joined: 13 Oct 2002
Posts: 1594
|
|
Posted: 12/11/03 - 02:39 Post subject:
|
|
|
| WheresNWS wrote: | | quotison wrote: | | WheresNWS wrote: |
4. There is no constitutional restriction of religion at the state level.
5. A justice in the Alabama supreme court put up the 10 commandments and nobody compained at the state level.
6. A federal court rules that the monument must be removed despite the fact the constitution only says congress shall not establish religion and this was done at the state level. |
Err, back to amendment XIV, section 1:
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States
If citizens have the right not to have congress not establish a religion on them, they they also have the right for the state to not establish a religion on them.
I think the only valid argument against that SC decision is that a judge merely putting the 10 commandments up for display is not an establishment of religion by the state, its just a decoration. I don't think its a state's rights issue. |
I agree with this, but each state has its own constitution that handles this. It is a state's rights issue, because a state has the right to legislate religion as it sees fit. The Alabama courts decided that this monument was inline with the Alabama constitution. |
The state does not have the right to legislate religion in a way that would establish a 'state religion'. Since the congress can't do that upon its citizens, the individual states can't do it upon their citizens either.
The state of alabama does have the right to determine if they want those monuments (in a broader sense, they can determine if they want a separation of church and state) , but the SC has the right to determine if that monument is an 'establishment of religion'.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 12/11/03 - 02:41 Post subject:
|
|
|
| quotison wrote: | | WheresNWS wrote: | | quotison wrote: | | WheresNWS wrote: |
4. There is no constitutional restriction of religion at the state level.
5. A justice in the Alabama supreme court put up the 10 commandments and nobody compained at the state level.
6. A federal court rules that the monument must be removed despite the fact the constitution only says congress shall not establish religion and this was done at the state level. |
Err, back to amendment XIV, section 1:
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States
If citizens have the right not to have congress not establish a religion on them, they they also have the right for the state to not establish a religion on them.
I think the only valid argument against that SC decision is that a judge merely putting the 10 commandments up for display is not an establishment of religion by the state, its just a decoration. I don't think its a state's rights issue. |
I agree with this, but each state has its own constitution that handles this. It is a state's rights issue, because a state has the right to legislate religion as it sees fit. The Alabama courts decided that this monument was inline with the Alabama constitution. |
The state does not have the right to legislate religion in a way that would establish a 'state religion'. Since the congress can't do that upon its citizens, the individual states can't do it upon their citizens either.
The state of alabama does have the right to determine if they want those monuments (in a broader sense, they can determine if they want a separation of church and state) , but the SC has the right to determine if that monument is an 'establishment of religion'. |
Incorrect. The amendment specifically says "congress." Besides the obvious fact that a judge having the 10 commandments in his courthouse is not the establishment of religion, this is not a federal issue.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
ATM Banana
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 02 Jan 2003
Posts: 8575
|
|
Posted: 12/11/03 - 02:48 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
nws, you'd be more convincing if you'd just quote word for word the source where you became inspired to make this illinformed arguement.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
themy
Sir Postalot
Joined: 14 Oct 2002
Posts: 1153
|
|
Posted: 12/11/03 - 02:51 Post subject:
|
|
|
Taken from other postings for NWS to read since he didn't before
controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
(this is judicial powers which have to do with the U.S. and also of citizens vs states 'state supreme courts') also courts have appelate jurisdiction aswell.
The courts undid segregation brown V board and also roe V wade these are both cases which outline the Judicial system's ability to "create" laws.
(this shows how courts have jurisdiction in cases)
point 1
"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. "
while the states do have all other laws not given to the U.S. they are still not able to withold a person's right to do as they wish.
point 2 refuting your so called argument of states rights being anythign they want
Quote:
3. The supreme court arbitrarily ruled that Texas does not have the right to have an anti-sodomy law, despite the 10th amendment saying it does.
The 10th ammend does not gaurentee all laws no matter what to states, the laws must still be constitutional. and obviously the texas laws are not.
point 3 yes actually please read this this time
4. There is no constitutional restriction of religion at the state level.
actually the federal law can be seen as a blanket since any federal law applies to all states
point 4 showing why the supreme court made a certain descision
this is a clear cut church/state descision, obviously his religious views did not need to be posted inside a court of LAW where all religions are equal.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 12/11/03 - 02:59 Post subject:
|
|
|
| themy wrote: | Taken from other postings for NWS to read since he didn't before
controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
(this is judicial powers which have to do with the U.S. and also of citizens vs states 'state supreme courts') also courts have appelate jurisdiction aswell.
The courts undid segregation brown V board and also roe V wade these are both cases which outline the Judicial system's ability to "create" laws.
(this shows how courts have jurisdiction in cases)
point 1
"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. "
while the states do have all other laws not given to the U.S. they are still not able to withold a person's right to do as they wish.
point 2 refuting your so called argument of states rights being anythign they want
Quote:
3. The supreme court arbitrarily ruled that Texas does not have the right to have an anti-sodomy law, despite the 10th amendment saying it does.
The 10th ammend does not gaurentee all laws no matter what to states, the laws must still be constitutional. and obviously the texas laws are not.
point 3 yes actually please read this this time
4. There is no constitutional restriction of religion at the state level.
actually the federal law can be seen as a blanket since any federal law applies to all states
point 4 showing why the supreme court made a certain descision
this is a clear cut church/state descision, obviously his religious views did not need to be posted inside a court of LAW where all religions are equal. |
You obviously didn't read my response, because all of these points are either irrelevant or incorrect.
"Hi. my name is Bob Jenkins, and I'm a pedpohile. I like young boys. One day I was out on my porch, looking at my neighbors son, William."
"Well being a child f****r, I have the right to have rough butt **** with children, so long as they're willing, otherwise it's a violation of the 14th amendment. I think I'll offer young william a candy bar if he lets me have butt **** with him. If anyone complains, I'll just hire the ACLU."
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
ATM Banana
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 02 Jan 2003
Posts: 8575
|
|
Posted: 12/11/03 - 03:03 Post subject:
|
|
|
way to completely s***w it up again nws.
firstly thats child abuse, not sodomy, no matter what he does to the child he would be tried for child abuse before "sodomy 1sd degree"
hah, just saying that is funny.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
themy
Sir Postalot
Joined: 14 Oct 2002
Posts: 1153
|
|
Posted: 12/11/03 - 03:03 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
actually your responses didn't make sense at all and were the irrelevant things, nice try tho
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 12/11/03 - 03:12 Post subject:
|
|
|
| themy wrote: | | actually your responses didn't make sense at all and were the irrelevant things, nice try tho |
How so? I didn't retype what I already had, because you could obviously go back and read it. But you never refuted what I typed. You simply said I was wrong without backing up your argument. I don't blame you for deciding to agree to disagree as this argument has become excessively tedious, but I don't accept you calling me ill-informed and whatnot because you have offered no counterpoint to my very simple demonstration that these rulings are not only arbitrary, but contrary to the document to which the justices are supposed to be bound.
"Hello, my name is Melissa and I'm a cat lady. I have over 200 cats in my house. One day a solicitor found out about them and called animal control. They took my babies away. I can't help being a cat lady! It's who I am! It's my right under the equal protection clause to have 200 cats! I'm hiring the ACLU!"
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
themy
Sir Postalot
Joined: 14 Oct 2002
Posts: 1153
|
|
Posted: 12/11/03 - 03:17 Post subject:
|
|
|
if she can care for all 200 and is not creating a disturbance or smell to others around then they wouldn't be able to take the cats away...
edit: unless there is a cap put on number of pets held without a liscense by the state. (this spot would be appropriate for a state to make its own laws)
Last edited by themy on 12/11/03 - 03:25; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
themy
Sir Postalot
Joined: 14 Oct 2002
Posts: 1153
|
|
Posted: 12/11/03 - 03:24 Post subject:
|
|
|
[quote="WheresNWS"] | themy wrote: | | actually your responses didn't make sense at all and were the irrelevant things, nice try tho |
How so? I didn't retype what I already had, because you could obviously go back and read it. But you never refuted what I typed. You simply said I was wrong without backing up your argument. I don't blame you for deciding to agree to disagree as this argument has become excessively tedious, but I don't accept you calling me ill-informed and whatnot because you have offered no counterpoint to my very simple demonstration that these rulings are not only arbitrary, but contrary to the document to which the justices are supposed to be bound.
quote]
actually you asked for someone to explain to you 8 points, i explained them all with valid points and pieces of the constitution. to which you used your one track mind to attempt to refute by saying stuff like:
| Quote: | | Wrong. Speech != Expression. That is a corruption of the law. Speech does not mean that you can "do as you want." Can I dump radiocative waste in my house that is in the middle of a city? No. |
hmm yeah this seems like an informed rebuttal, oh wait no it's a dumb one.
please before you speak don't try to dispute clearly present facts such as a written constitution or your written words.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 12/11/03 - 03:36 Post subject:
|
|
|
| themy wrote: | if she can care for all 200 and is not creating a disturbance or smell to others around then they wouldn't be able to take the cats away...
edit: unless there is a cap put on number of pets held without a liscense by the state. (this spot would be appropriate for a state to make its own laws) |
"The state has no right to put such a cap on my pets. I am a cat lady and NEED them! This is a blatant attack to the 14th amendment! Where's my ACLU???"
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 12/11/03 - 03:41 Post subject:
|
|
|
[quote="themy"] | WheresNWS wrote: | | themy wrote: | | actually your responses didn't make sense at all and were the irrelevant things, nice try tho |
How so? I didn't retype what I already had, because you could obviously go back and read it. But you never refuted what I typed. You simply said I was wrong without backing up your argument. I don't blame you for deciding to agree to disagree as this argument has become excessively tedious, but I don't accept you calling me ill-informed and whatnot because you have offered no counterpoint to my very simple demonstration that these rulings are not only arbitrary, but contrary to the document to which the justices are supposed to be bound.
quote]
actually you asked for someone to explain to you 8 points, i explained them all with valid points and pieces of the constitution. to which you used your one track mind to attempt to refute by saying stuff like:
| Quote: | | Wrong. Speech != Expression. That is a corruption of the law. Speech does not mean that you can "do as you want." Can I dump radiocative waste in my house that is in the middle of a city? No. |
hmm yeah this seems like an informed rebuttal, oh wait no it's a dumb one.
please before you speak don't try to dispute clearly present facts such as a written constitution or your written words. |
How the f**k is that invalid??? Freedom of "expression" is a popular contemporary invention. The word "expression" is not anywhere in the constitution. NOWHERE. Speech != expression because expression is extended to all behavior, whereas speech is merely the communication of ideas via the spoken or written word. The meaning of "freedom of speech" has been corrupted by intentionally changing it to "freedom of expression." Punching someone in the face is an expression of anger, but the constitution does not cover that. Assassinating a political leader is expressing your distaste for him, but the constitution does not guarantee that either. Speech != expression. If you say otherwise, then I'll bet you believe war is peace, too.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Nemo
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 05 Jan 2003
Posts: 2202
|
|
Posted: 12/11/03 - 03:42 Post subject:
|
|
|
Random Butt pic.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Akronn
Guest
|
|
Posted: 12/11/03 - 10:27 Post subject:
|
|
|
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)
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Paco
RealPoor Jedi
Joined: 13 Oct 2002
Posts: 12939
Location: Jacksonville, FL
|
|
Posted: 12/11/03 - 10:37 Post subject:
|
|
|
Foolish mortals. Don't you know it's pointless to argue with wnws?
Think "Stupid as a brick" with regards to what you're replying to. 
God damned jesus freak that he is.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
