Constitution Study Group

Comment

Comment by jody kimbrell on April 27, 2010 at 3:22pm

no judges should be common citizens the lawyers that present the argument neds to know law. the jury decides the fate and the judge oversees the trial. the ones we have judicate using their opinion exactly what Jefferson told them not to do.

Comment by Vern Shotwell on April 27, 2010 at 2:57pm

Hold on, Jody!
Judges must be lawyers, and extremely well learned ones, as well!
Or, perhaps, we should appoint janitors. Perhaps illegal alien ones, to boot!

Being fallacious, obviously. But an understanding of law, it's development and history should be a requirement for all. Starting with the Code of Hammurabi and proceeding forward! Intelligence and knowledge should be, nay must be, integral to such an exhausted position!

Comment by jody kimbrell on April 27, 2010 at 2:30pm

better yet no judges can be lawyers. the first judges on the bench were the leaders of the various churches. the Danbury Baptist Church's minister was a judge. he got a letter from president Jefferson when this judge was using the Baptist Constitution instead of the Federal Constitution. Jefferson told him not to use the Baptist Constitution on the bench to judicate, to which they wrote back and said "we will erect a wall as in Jerusalem and separate church doctrine from state (Federal Constitution) to which they did. Where one incident gave us "separation of church and state" the other was when Jefferson was Governor of Virginia the Church of England was taxing every citizen to support their church. Jefferson had the legislature branch write a law prohibiting the Church from taxing the citizens of VA. This law is still part of the Tennessee Constitution which was a territory of VA. The citizens of VA were afraid when they declared their statehood that MA citizens(ties to Church of England-catholic) would move over get elected to office and make them change their declared religion-Protestant. It reads "No person whose main occupation involves church leadership can be elected to public office, thus forever keeping their declared religion safe from being changed.

Comment by Phil on April 27, 2010 at 1:15pm

State Supreme courts don't. Here in Mass. they make up whatever they want to.How about you can't be a lawyer if you want to be a politician. Each candidate would instead get an American history test and have to answer questions on the founding documents so they know their limits.Courts and Laws made according to the constitution only get muddied when Lawyers are dealing with it. I would put my faith in a common man with common sense over any of these impostors that(supposedly) serve us.Lindsey if you vote for that cap and trade scam you are finished.Say We the People! And the Vat tax? You people have really lost your minds and are so drunk with power you have lost your ability to govern such a great nation without destroying it in the end. You don't even know or respect the founding documents. I can tell by the flippant answers we get from the usurpers when we wish to hold them up to such said values/documents. Potus lies. This is a truth that can only be denied by those who wish to ignore the truth. I've HEARD him and I've SEEN him and swearing on the Bible this is a truth they can't deny. Don't observe the truth or they'll call you names. Waa Waa. He excluded us typical white people in his bull he was slinging. Did anyone catch that. His duty is to protect our sovereignty just put it on the list of delinquencies. They just don't care. Such Arrogance is what will do them in eventually.

Comment by Charlie on April 27, 2010 at 11:23am

re: "State courts defer to legislative intent, why not the Supreme Court?"

Because many SCOTUS justices disagree with the original intent of the Constitution.

Comment by Publius Huldah on April 27, 2010 at 9:17am

Well, PH didn't plant "ken from ny". The Enemy sent him. (PH spent the day outside doing yard work.) But Wayne could write allegories! PH is reading "Pilgrim's Progress" (John Bunyan), and suggests to Wayne that he consider writing an allegory about the Battle over the Constitution. It is an effective literary style - and one for which Wayne shows great promise.

The idea that one must consult The Federalist Papers to learn what the Constitution means is very radical. Even some people on our side (whose names Delicacy prohibits PH from disclosing) once upbraided PH for her reliance on The Federalist Papers. But it (and other such contemporary writings) is, in fact, the only way to ascertain the "original intent" of the Constitution. And if we don't go by "original intent", we don't have a Constitution. We are ruled by federal judges who, looking only into their own "life experiences" or whatever, decide what it means. So, PH thinks that the line of attack the Enemy has come up with is the one made by "ken from ny" (since the identical argument was made recently on PH's website). They never could defend their positions intellectually.

The one who made disparaging remarks about Alexander Hamilton's parentage was someone from this class! (Where is my ruler?) PH points out to him that no one is responsible for what his parents do (or don't do), and thus one should not hold Hamilton's status as a "love child" against him. Few are perfect. Hence, while Hamilton's later support for a national bank saddens PH, such in no way detracts from the gifts he gave the world in The Federalist Papers.

The Protagonist Men were brilliant yesterday! PH beamed with pride as she read their posts.

Comment by Phil Hoffman on April 27, 2010 at 8:29am

HE'S A PLANT.

Comment by Wayne Litchford on April 27, 2010 at 2:15am

I’ve been following The Great "ken from ny" Showdown. It was like watching a very good Louis Lamour mini-series with the Protagonist Men and the Antagonist Loner going head to head over their heartfelt love for the Damsel Constitution.

Doomed from the start, Antagonist "ken from ny" tried in vain to rescue her from the firm and steadfast hold of the Protagonist Men. He delivered volley after volley of weaving speeches about the uselessness of Federalist Papers in a spoiled attempt to distance Connie from them. Then, He tried to tell her that she didn’t need Federalist Papers to shine her every word…that she could stand alone. Then Protagonists began to deliver the final…but, wait a minute…

All this time, in the back of my mind, I’ve been thinking, “How suspicious…I wonder where our beloved Publius Huldah is… on this night of nights…this battle of battles.

That’s when it occurred to me, “A test? No, she wouldn’t! Is she putting us through a test?” I had noticed previously how she had repeatedly proclaimed her love for the man who has now become the very villain of the battle (at least according to “ken from ny"). That would throw us all off track. No way would PH pose as a hater of Alexander Hamilton.

Or…would she?

Comment by Publius Huldah on April 26, 2010 at 11:04pm

Well, then, put your fingers to your keyboard and crank it out again!

It appears that the argument "ken from ny" recited here is the argument the enemy has come up with to discourage us from using the Federalist Papers to explain the "original intent" of The Constitution. Naturally, the enemy doesn't want to be guided by what Hamilton & Madison said it meant! The enemy wants the freedom to say it means what they say it means without reference to any outside authority! Just their own poorly educated & unthinking "minds".

As Dennis pointed out, it is impossible to understand a text without a context. If I say that a soldier who fought in Viet Nam "bought the farm", every combat vet knows what I mean: the soldier was killed in action. B/c in the context of that war, that's what the soldiers meant when they used that phrase.

But if I write in a paper that PFC. John Doe, who fought in Viet Nam, "bought the farm"; and my paper is read several hundred years later, my readers would think I meant that after the war, PFC. Doe became a farmer. They would think that b/c they were ignorant of the context. To get the true meaning of my words, they would need to know that the phrase was an idiom which actually meant, "killed in combat". So they would need, say, an American lexicon of 20th century idioms to learn what the phrase actually meant when I wrote it. So! This is an illustration of what it means to read looking for the "objective meaning" of the text.

So, they can't just go by the words of my paper! They have to learn the context in which I wrote in order to understand.

Comment by Charlie on April 26, 2010 at 7:54pm

Beware agents provocateurs!

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 227
• 228
• 229
• 230
• 231
• …
• 293
• Next ›
• Page