Free-Market Capitalism never loses?

[Andy]

Patently false? You are stating your opinion as if it were a fact.

When I can look up data and information regarding the specific issue, and see the empirical results of that policy, it's no longer opinion. It's fact.

When I claim that 200 years ago, the constitution protected child pornography, that's opinion. Especially when I can lookup the commentary written about the amendment in question and see it did not apply.

Are you saying that there should be no interpretation? OK. Let's call it by a different name: The Supreme Court "clarifies" the constitution. If you don't accept that, then we might as well accept threats of death to the president as a right given by the first Amendment.

It seems that you are now admitting that the constitution is interpreted, but you don't like what the interpretation is. That is all I am saying -- that the Supreme Court must clarify the constitutional meaning when someone challenges the law, and says he is doing something legal.

Why do you say Obama disagrees with me? I will accept that you don't personally like the way the constitution has been interpreted in certain cases, and there are areas that I nor Obama nor many others don't like.

Let's go with your example:
"... to 'interpret' the constitution is to allow the premeditated murder of children..."

and consider mine:
"To not 'interpret' the constitution is to allow child pornography on the internet."

A few centuries ago the framers of the constitution couldn't foresee the internet, so child pornography should be allowed by the first amendment -- according to your logic.

You actually made my case. You just proved my whole point. The first amendment, freedom of speech, was specifically directed at the ability of the public to speak against the government.

Your version of 'interpretation' has lead us to preventing freedom of speech in the form of campaign finance reform, while allowing some of the most vulgar crap to be protected under this amendment, when it was never written for that purpose.

While politicians have in the passed, and are trying to implement again, the fairness doctrine under the unconstitutional control of the FCC, they have protected Lary Flints right to directly slander a private citizen under the guise of 'freedom of speech'.

The fact people think that the first amendment has anything at all to do with child pornography, shows exactly how "interpretation" has screwed up our constitution, making it nearly worthless. A large section of our country doesn't even know what rights the constitution was written to protect. It is no wonder we don't even realize what rights we've lost.

 

[Lagboltz]

You actually made my case. You just proved my whole point. The first amendment, freedom of speech, was specifically directed at the ability of the public to speak against the government.

Your version of 'interpretation' has lead us to preventing freedom of speech in the form of campaign finance reform, while allowing some of the most vulgar crap to be protected under this amendment, when it was never written for that purpose.

You actually made my case. All I was claiming is that the constitution, in practice, is not a stagnant document, but its meaning is evolving according to challenges brought to the Supreme Court. What you are claiming is that you don't like it. I agree that interpretation of the constitution has led to good and bad extensions from it's original meaning. Also, there will always be disagreement among people as to which interpretations are good and which are bad.

The fact people think that the first amendment has anything at all to do with child pornography, shows exactly how "interpretation" has screwed up our constitution, making it nearly worthless.

There is good reason to have laws such as child pornography handled by the Federal Government. If it were left to the states (all laws not covered by the Constitution are left to the States), there would be no control, because pornographers would flock to the states that allow it, and broadcast it publicly. The recourse is to find the nearest Amendment to the problem at hand and have a case brought to the Supreme Court. So, you are upset about it, but that's the way things are.

Let me turn the question around. Since you don't like the idea of the first amendment having anything to do with child pornography, how would you suggest it be handled otherwise? Do you want any laws concerning that to outside the federal courts, and leave it to the state courts?

A large section of our country doesn't even know what rights the constitution was written to protect. It is no wonder we don't even realize what rights we've lost.

I agree with that. An employee under me was giving out confidential information. When I confronted him, he said he had "freedom of speech". I replied that if he was correct, the government will not prosecute him. But we are a company and we have different rules, and if he continues, the company will take action against him, not the federal government.

 

[Andy]

You actually made my case. All I was claiming is that the constitution, in practice, is not a stagnant document, but its meaning is evolving according to challenges brought to the Supreme Court. What you are claiming is that you don't like it. I agree that interpretation of the constitution has led to good and bad extensions from it's original meaning. Also, there will always be disagreement among people as to which interpretations are good and which are bad.

A constitution which can be reinterpreted to mean anything on the whims of those 'interpreting', is a worthless and meaningless document.

There is good reason to have laws such as child pornography handled by the Federal Government. If it were left to the states (all laws not covered by the Constitution are left to the States), there would be no control, because pornographers would flock to the states that allow it, and broadcast it publicly. The recourse is to find the nearest Amendment to the problem at hand and have a case brought to the Supreme Court. So, you are upset about it, but that's the way things are.

You seem to have this backwards. You claim that banning child pornography is a case where the 1st amendment needs to be 'interpreted'. But simply reading it, makes it clear it doesn't cover pornography. The USSC never ruled that child pornography should be banned, only that it wasn't covered.

The only thing 'interpreting' the 1st amendment could do, is make it so it does cover it. For example slander.

Let me turn the question around. Since you don't like the idea of the first amendment having anything to do with child pornography, how would you suggest it be handled otherwise? Do you want any laws concerning that to outside the federal courts, and leave it to the state courts?

I agree with that. An employee under me was giving out confidential information. When I confronted him, he said he had "freedom of speech". I replied that if he was correct, the government will not prosecute him. But we are a company and we have different rules, and if he continues, the company will take action against him, not the federal government.

Since the first amendment did not cover it before, and it does not now, that is the uninterpreted view of what the 1st amendment means. Now, if we can stick to that instead of allowing it to cover slander and a number of other disgusting things, then we'll be in agreement.

In other words, child pornography is an example of not 'interpreting' the 1st amendment. Allowing the slander of private citizens, is an example of it being interpreted.

 

[Lagboltz]

ou seem to have this backwards. You claim that banning child pornography is a case where the 1st amendment needs to be 'interpreted'. But simply reading it, makes it clear it doesn't cover pornography. The USSC never ruled that child pornography should be banned, only that it wasn't covered.

The only thing 'interpreting' the 1st amendment could do, is make it so it does cover it. For example slander.

Well, I understand your perspective, but I consider that when the USSC says that some action is not covered by the constitution, that it is also an interpretation of what the Article or Amendment under consideration means (or does not mean). As I said before, we have a differing concept of what "interpret" means.

Since the first amendment did not cover it before, and it does not now, that is the uninterpreted view of what the 1st amendment means. Now, if we can stick to that instead of allowing it to cover slander and a number of other disgusting things, then we'll be in agreement.

In other words, child pornography is an example of not 'interpreting' the 1st amendment. Allowing the slander of private citizens, is an example of it being interpreted.

Let's go back to another example, Roe vs. Wade. A careful reading of the constitution allows abortion, and the States cannot deny it. It is based in part on the Bill of Rights.

It says it in the 4th 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"
and the 9th Amendment, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
and all that in light of due process in the 14th Amendment.

So if you wish, arguably we can say that no interpretation is necessary. It's all there, written in the constitution -- the states cannot disallow certain things, such as abortion.

 

[Andy]

Well, I understand your perspective, but I consider that when the USSC says that some action is not covered by the constitution, that it is also an interpretation of what the Article or Amendment under consideration means (or does not mean). As I said before, we have a differing concept of what "interpret" means.

It's funny but your remarks seem contradictory. On the one hand, here you imply the interpretation is to take the literal meaning. But in the prior post you implied that the constitution is ever changing, and thus interpretation is a change in meaning.

So which is it? Does interpret mean to take the literal meaning of the constitution, or does it mean to change the meaning in an ever evolving document?

You can't have it both ways. You either have a static document that says the 'right to free speech' directly applies to speaking against the government, and thus child pornography is not covered.

Or you have an evolving document in which 'right to free speech' could be interpreted to mean covering child pornography, like it 'supposedly' does the slander of a private citizen.

You can't have a rule about interpretation that selectively covers whatever issue you like, and not an issue you don't like. That's hypocritical.

Let's go back to another example, Roe vs. Wade. A careful reading of the constitution allows abortion, and the States cannot deny it. It is based in part on the Bill of Rights.

It says it in the 4th 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"
and the 9th Amendment, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
and all that in light of due process in the 14th Amendment.

So if you wish, arguably we can say that no interpretation is necessary. It's all there, written in the constitution -- the states cannot disallow certain things, such as abortion.

This is exactly what I mean when I say I'm against 'interpretation'. You have 'reinterpreted' the 4th and 9th amendment to validate murder. If I subscribed to this theory, in order to be logically honest and not be hypocritical, I'd have to support the elimination of all murder laws.

 

[Lagboltz]

It's funny but your remarks seem contradictory. On the one hand, here you imply the interpretation is to take the literal meaning. But in the prior post you implied that the constitution is ever changing, and thus interpretation is a change in meaning.

I was being facetious. I choose to consider the USSC interprets the constitution. The bottom line is that future cases will cite prior USSC decisions as precedence. If you don't want to consider that as "interpretation" it doesn't matter to me.

This is exactly what I mean when I say I'm against 'interpretation'. You have 'reinterpreted' the 4th and 9th amendment to validate murder. If I subscribed to this theory, in order to be logically honest and not be hypocritical, I'd have to support the elimination of all murder laws.

What do you mean I have "reinterpreted" it? I was citing the USSC logic in the Roe vs. Wade decision, not my logic.

 

[Andy]

I was being facetious. I choose to consider the USSC interprets the constitution. The bottom line is that future cases will cite prior USSC decisions as precedence. If you don't want to consider that as "interpretation" it doesn't matter to me.

Wow, I just realized, this is exactly how the Catholic church did all the things it did. If the early Catholic church had simply read the Bible, the 'constitution of christian faith' as it were, they never would have done all the things they did. They never would have started the Crusades, because the Bible clearly said that the 'holy land' would fall to non-believers as a punishment of G-d.

But Catholics didn't follow that. Instead each pope wrote his own little thing, and added it to the belief system. Eventually you ended up with church doctrine that was built, not on Biblical teaching, but simply what prior popes had said, on what prior popes had said, and so on.

This is how the Catholic church justified all of their prior mistakes, even burning Christians at the stake, let alone the crusades and so on.

What you have shown me is that the supreme court, making rulings on prior rulings, based on prior rulings, instead of the Constitution, is pretty much the same system used by cults. Your system is that of a religious dogma that no longer has any basis in truth.

Separation of church and state is the basis of law, yet not found in the constitution, freedom of speech protects slander of a private citizen, right to bear arms means you can't have any arms unless they are approved and registered by the government, and let's go free the holy land and slaughter muslims in the name of g-d. All the same thing.

The left is almost their own private religion. "g-d damn america, it's in the bible" Says Rev Wright, Obama's spiritual leader who inspired his book. Yeah, where? In what Bible? The Satanic Bible? You know... this all makes sense now.

What do you mean I have "reinterpreted" it? I was citing the USSC logic in the Roe vs. Wade decision, not my logic.

Well... generally murder is considered unconstitutional. Don't you think it's a far departure from the intent... let alone the plainly written meaning, to say the Constitution supports murder? That's some pretty twisted bending of the meaning, to claim those amendments justify or constitutionally support murder. But that in essence, is what you claim.

 

[Lagboltz]

Wow, I just realized, this is exactly how the Catholic church did all the things it did. If the early Catholic church had simply read the Bible, the 'constitution of christian faith' as it were, they never would have done all the things they did. They never would have started the Crusades, because the Bible clearly said that the 'holy land' would fall to non-believers as a punishment of G-d.

But Catholics didn't follow that. Instead each pope wrote his own little thing, and added it to the belief system. Eventually you ended up with church doctrine that was built, not on Biblical teaching, but simply what prior popes had said, on what prior popes had said, and so on.

Now you are being facetious. Of course the Catholic church is not alone in the layering of interpretations. Judaism, Islam, etc. do the same, along with the supreme court. That seems to be the trend in practically every institutional doctrine that's over a few hundred years old. C'mon Andy; try to keep up. Times are a-changing.

Separation of church and state is the basis of law, yet not found in the constitution, freedom of speech protects slander of a private citizen, right to bear arms means you can't have any arms unless they are approved and registered by the government, and let's go free the holy land and slaughter muslims in the name of g-d. All the same thing.

Right, and don't forget the Islam extremists slaughter whoever they want in the name of their God. Irish Catholics and Protestants slaughtered each other not too long ago. Slaughter in the name of Religion seems to be interdenominational.

The left is almost their own private religion. "g-d damn america, it's in the bible" Says Rev Wright, Obama's spiritual leader who inspired his book. Yeah, where? In what Bible? The Satanic Bible? You know... this all makes sense now.

The left??? A bit of a stretch, to put it mildly. I don't think you will find more than a very small fraction that agree with Rev Wright.

Well... generally murder is considered unconstitutional. Don't you think it's a far departure from the intent... let alone the plainly written meaning, to say the Constitution supports murder? That's some pretty twisted bending of the meaning, to claim those amendments justify or constitutionally support murder. But that in essence, is what you claim.

You must have misread me. I said, Quote:
"What do you mean I have "reinterpreted" it? I was citing the USSC logic in the Roe vs. Wade decision, not my logic."

I am not claiming that I made any decision about murder. The Supreme Court made that decision; not me.

As far as abortion being considered murder, there are other threads here that have gone through that along with the concept of capitol punishment being considered murder.

 

[Andy]

Now you are being facetious. Of course the Catholic church is not alone in the layering of interpretations. Judaism, Islam, etc. do the same, along with the supreme court. That seems to be the trend in practically every institutional doctrine that's over a few hundred years old. C'mon Andy; try to keep up. Times are a-changing.

You are missing the point that the shift off the basis of our constitution is what is causing the problems. Just like the shift off of sound doctrine caused those problems.

Right, and don't forget the Islam extremists slaughter whoever they want in the name of their God. Irish Catholics and Protestants slaughtered each other not too long ago. Slaughter in the name of Religion seems to be interdenominational.

Again, the point wasn't about some specific denomination. The point was, the use of slowly moving away from our constitutional foundation has led to the problems we now have.

In the book, the rise and fall of nations, one of the key signs is the loss of core foundational principals. This is exactly what you are arguing for the support of, while in prior posts complaining that the end of our nation is near.

The left??? A bit of a stretch, to put it mildly. I don't think you will find more than a very small fraction that agree with Rev Wright.

Not so. There is a massive number of people who want the US to fail, and are working towards that end. I read about university professors who were happy when US soldiers die. How about William Ayers who made anti-personnel bombs specifically to kill US citizens?

Yes, there is most clearly a large group of people who are against the US. Now whether they are a fraction of the left wing or not is irrelevant to the fact the left have voted for those of that faction.

You must have misread me. I said, Quote:
"What do you mean I have "reinterpreted" it? I was citing the USSC logic in the Roe vs. Wade decision, not my logic."

I am not claiming that I made any decision about murder. The Supreme Court made that decision; not me.

Does not matter. You said "All I was claiming is that the constitution, in practice, is not a stagnant document, but its meaning is evolving according to challenges brought to the Supreme Court."

Thus, since the supreme court says murder is legally protected, if you support your own statement, you support the legalization of murder according to the Supreme Court's interpretation. Do you, or do you not, support your statement?

As far as abortion being considered murder, there are other threads here that have gone through that along with the concept of capitol punishment being considered murder.

Irrelevant to the topic. Murder is 'unjustified' killing of a human being.

If you wish to considered capital punishment as unjustified, we'll deal with that in another thread.

You brought up abortion, the murdering of a human being unable to commit any crime worthy of death. Stick to your own topic, and explain how your view of the Supreme Courts 'interpretation' of the constitution allows for murder. If you can explain that, I'll agree. Otherwise, interpretation is simply a way to completely change the obvious mean of the constitution to justify things it was never meant to support.

Again, a constitution that can be completely changed at a whim of interpretation, is like not having one at all.

 

[Lagboltz]

You are missing the point that the shift off the basis of our constitution is what is causing the problems. Just like the shift off of sound doctrine caused those problems.

I really don't understand your point. Lower court cases are often based on constitutional law. If one of the parties in a suit claims that constitutional law was misused, it can be appealed to a higher court, and perhaps eventually the USSC. They either hear the case, or refuse. Either way the case now has a precedence in law and can be cited by other cases under trial. If you want to call this a "shift off the basis" then so be it. But that is the way current law works. You haven't supplied a viable alternative.

Not so. There is a massive number of people who want the US to fail, and are working towards that end. I read about university professors who were happy when US soldiers die. How about William Ayers who made anti-personnel bombs specifically to kill US citizens?

Yes, there is most clearly a large group of people who are against the US. Now whether they are a fraction of the left wing or not is irrelevant to the fact the left have voted for those of that faction.

I think we have a different concept of "massive". The SDS and few professors and other miscellaneous underground institutions don't amount to much more than a "small fraction" as I said.

Does not matter. You said "All I was claiming is that the constitution, in practice, is not a stagnant document, but its meaning is evolving according to challenges brought to the Supreme Court."

See my point above, about the USSC, to understand my statement. Whatever the USSC rules, you and I have to abide by it too, whether we agree with their wisdom or not. Our difference is which particular decisions you and I disagree with.

You brought up abortion, the murdering of a human being unable to commit any crime worthy of death. Stick to your own topic, and explain how your view of the Supreme Courts 'interpretation' of the constitution allows for murder. If you can explain that, I'll agree. Otherwise, interpretation is simply a way to completely change the obvious mean of the constitution to justify things it was never meant to support.

The difference here is that a massive number of people disagree that abortion should be considered murder if it is done at an early enough stage. I think abortion is a very unfortunate circumstance, but it is not my body. I let the women that have abortions worry about it. The whole question is whether doctors, medical aides, or the woman should be punished for the abortion. The USSC says no. They obviously don't consider it murder in all circumstances, and have laid out rules for when it is actionable or not, and I agree with the USSC.

Again, a constitution that can be completely changed at a whim of interpretation, is like not having one at all.

It seems that the thrust of your posts are a lamentation of the role of the USSC with the constitution. You have not supplied an alternative to the evolution of court cases that would satisfy you. Even if you did, you should expect others to be dissatisfied with your alternative as well. Our government is a compromise. A good compromise has been said to be a solution where all parties are equally dissatisfied.

 

[Andy]

I think we have a different concept of "massive". The SDS and few professors and other miscellaneous underground institutions don't amount to much more than a "small fraction" as I said.

Yet we elected people whose ideology they support. That "small fraction", right now, is the president elect.

The difference here is that a massive number of people disagree that abortion should be considered murder if it is done at an early enough stage. I think abortion is a very unfortunate circumstance, but it is not my body. I let the women that have abortions worry about it. The whole question is whether doctors, medical aides, or the woman should be punished for the abortion. The USSC says no. They obviously don't consider it murder in all circumstances, and have laid out rules for when it is actionable or not, and I agree with the USSC.

I suppose we could use that theory for all murder. It's not my body, I'll let them worry about it. Sorry... murder is morally wrong, and should be opposed. Just curious, if the court in the future over turns abortion, are you going to be as open to accepting the courts views then as now?

It seems that the thrust of your posts are a lamentation of the role of the USSC with the constitution. You have not supplied an alternative to the evolution of court cases that would satisfy you. Even if you did, you should expect others to be dissatisfied with your alternative as well. Our government is a compromise. A good compromise has been said to be a solution where all parties are equally dissatisfied.

Seems simple enough to me. All court decisions should be based on the constitution alone, and not prior court cases, or irrelevant opinions of the prior majority rulings.

The very idea that you can have rulings on rulings until the court says that "freedom of speech" protects the right to slander a private citizen, seems to indicate a problem with the system. I assume you don't agree? Or perhaps you are unwilling to stand for the intent of the amendment as written?

I constantly amazed that you are willing to let your constitutional rights be bastardized this way, and then shocked when government takes your rights away. When the government has the power to twist up the constitution any way it wants, don't be surprised when they are removed completely.

 

[Lagboltz]

Yet we elected people whose ideology they support. That "small fraction", right now, is the president elect.

The word "they" above refers back to post 69. Quote "a massive number of people who want the US to fail, and are working towards that end." If you are really saying that Obama wants the US to fail, then you are in a different universe than I am, and I have no idea how you think. If you say you think Obama will fail, then I can accept that as a valid opinion. I have no idea how the next four years will turn out, but I firmly believe that Obama does not want to fail nor is he "working toward that end" by conscious volition.

I suppose we could use that theory for all murder. It's not my body, I'll let them worry about it. Sorry... murder is morally wrong, and should be opposed.

You misunderstood. The USSC did not rule that early abortion is murder. It is you who are saying it is murder. The USSC obviously disagrees with your definition. Therefore there is no inconsistency within the court.

Just curious, if the court in the future over turns abortion, are you going to be as open to accepting the courts views then as now?

You must have forgotten my point of view.

I previously said, in Post #62,
"I agree that interpretation of the constitution has led to good and bad extensions from it's original meaning. Also, there will always be disagreement among people as to which interpretations are good and which are bad."

So, the answer is simply that I would accept the Court's decision as law, although I would disagree with it's wisdom.

Seems simple enough to me. All court decisions should be based on the constitution alone, and not prior court cases, or irrelevant opinions of the prior majority rulings.

The very idea that you can have rulings on rulings until the court says that "freedom of speech" protects the right to slander a private citizen, seems to indicate a problem with the system. I assume you don't agree? Or perhaps you are unwilling to stand for the intent of the amendment as written?

Sure, I stand for the intent of the amendments, but it is hard to know how the intent applies to the modern world. That's what the courts decide with rulings. If someone doesn't like a ruling, they can always appeal.

I constantly amazed that you are willing to let your constitutional rights be bastardized this way,

What you think are bastardized, others may think is reasonable. What I think are bastardized, others may think is reasonable. I am constantly amazed at the depth of conservatism a large part of our population exhibits.

and then shocked when government takes your rights away.

I am used to being shocked by the idiocy the US government sometimes exhibits in many areas under or outside the constitution.

When the government has the power to twist up the constitution any way it wants, don't be surprised when they are removed completely.

I am continually surprised too.

You seem to be in a quest for an ideal government. It won't happen. Your idea of utopia is different than mine and at least half the population. We might get a groundswell of people to stop a war or promote equal rights, but getting people to want to change the whole system of law by eliminating legal precedence is a long shot. So if I agreed with you about maintaining the purity of the constitution, I would be reduced to just carping about it too.

 

[Andy]

The word "they" above refers back to post 69. Quote "a massive number of people who want the US to fail, and are working towards that end." If you are really saying that Obama wants the US to fail, then you are in a different universe than I am, and I have no idea how you think. If you say you think Obama will fail, then I can accept that as a valid opinion. I have no idea how the next four years will turn out, but I firmly believe that Obama does not want to fail nor is he "working toward that end" by conscious volition.

Obama doesn't even know what Obama wants. His only goals are for his own advancement. You can tell that pretty easy by how he flip flops on every important issue.

You misunderstood. The USSC did not rule that early abortion is murder. It is you who are saying it is murder. The USSC obviously disagrees with your definition. Therefore there is no inconsistency within the court.

Murder is not determined to be murder by the courts. Murder is murder, whether the court says that it is or not.

So, the answer is simply that I would accept the Court's decision as law, although I would disagree with it's wisdom.

I see. So I am talking to someone who supports murder. That explains why we can't see eye to eye on this issue. Perhaps we should end discussion.

Sure, I stand for the intent of the amendments, but it is hard to know how the intent applies to the modern world. That's what the courts decide with rulings. If someone doesn't like a ruling, they can always appeal.

Hard to know? Can you explain how an amendment that protects a right to speak against government, doesn't cover the ability to place an ad on TV that speaks against politicians, but does cover slandering a private citizen?

It's only hard to know if you refuse to follow what it says, and instead read a bunch of opinions on prior rulings.

What you think are bastardized, others may think is reasonable. What I think are bastardized, others may think is reasonable. I am constantly amazed at the depth of conservatism a large part of our population exhibits.

I am used to being shocked by the idiocy the US government sometimes exhibits in many areas under or outside the constitution.

I am continually surprised too.

You seem to be in a quest for an ideal government. It won't happen. Your idea of utopia is different than mine and at least half the population. We might get a groundswell of people to stop a war or promote equal rights, but getting people to want to change the whole system of law by eliminating legal precedence is a long shot. So if I agreed with you about maintaining the purity of the constitution, I would be reduced to just carping about it too.

You say you are shocked by the idiocy of government, but don't see that it's exactly on your basis of constitutional law that government does these things.

Then you complain because I have solution, while providing no answers yourself.

I think we've reached the end of the discussion. What do you think?

 

[Lagboltz]

I think we've reached the end of the discussion. What do you think?

I agree.