Describe your ideal President and Representative

[southsider2k5]

The 10th Amendment:

 

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.

 

This to me says quite clearly that the Constitution is an affirmative document in explicitly providing powers to the federal government. Meaning, EVERYTHING not SPECIFICALLY given to the federal government, was meant to be reserved for the States, or the people (via lower levels of government in some cases). The 10th is by far the most abused and forgotten entry of the Bill of Rights.

 

That is the entire basis for the guys who refuse to pay their taxes on the basis that the IRS is unconstitutional in its very exsistance.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

That is the entire basis for the guys who refuse to pay their taxes on the basis that the IRS is unconstitutional in its very exsistance.

 

 

Without some form of federal taxation, however, the government would be unable to fund itself and would cease to exist.

[NorthSideSox72]

That is the entire basis for the guys who refuse to pay their taxes on the basis that the IRS is unconstitutional in its very exsistance.

Article I, sections 2 and 8 say "Hi".

[Jenksismyhero]

The 10th Amendment:

 

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.

 

This to me says quite clearly that the Constitution is an affirmative document in explicitly providing powers to the federal government. Meaning, EVERYTHING not SPECIFICALLY given to the federal government, was meant to be reserved for the States, or the people (via lower levels of government in some cases). The 10th is by far the most abused and forgotten entry of the Bill of Rights.

 

 

I blame liberal members of the Supreme Court over the years who have essentially given up on this amendment. They expand the words of the text or read into the text so much that a lot of the clauses are essentially at odds with the original meaning.

 

I'm a Scalia fan, not just because he's a textualist/originalist (even though there are problems with that theory...) but because he has a proper sense of the role of the Court, which is to NOT decide public policy. His motto is "if the people want it, take it to the the legislatures not the courts."

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

I'm a Scalia fan, not just because he's a textualist/originalist (even though there are problems with that theory...) but because he has a proper sense of the role of the Court, which is to NOT decide public policy. His motto is "if the people want it, take it to the the legislatures not the courts."

 

 

Trouble is a lot of times people DO want certain laws and groups like the ACLU tie them up in court and sometimes get them knocked off the books because they simply dont like them.

[southsider2k5]

Article I, sections 2 and 8 say "Hi".

 

I'm not saying I buy that... just sayin.

 

I blame liberal members of the Supreme Court over the years who have essentially given up on this amendment. They expand the words of the text or read into the text so much that a lot of the clauses are essentially at odds with the original meaning.

 

I'm a Scalia fan, not just because he's a textualist/originalist (even though there are problems with that theory...) but because he has a proper sense of the role of the Court, which is to NOT decide public policy. His motto is "if the people want it, take it to the the legislatures not the courts."

 

And I think this is the fine distinction that is meant when people talk about legislating from the bench. When the courts take up cases speficially because they want to establish a precident in them, this is what is being talked about.

[Balta1701]

Let's have Christ our President

Let us have him for our king

Cast your vote for the Carpenter

That they call the Nazarene

 

The only way

We could ever beat

These crooked politician men

 

Is to cast the moneychangers

Out of the temple

Put the Carpenter in

 

Oh it's Jesus Christ our President

God above our king

With a job and pension for young and old

We will make hallelujah ring

 

Every year we waste enough

To feed the ones who starve

We build our civilization up

And we shoot it down with wars

 

But with the Carpenter

On the seat

Way up in the capitol town

 

The USA

Be on the way

Prosperity bound

[NorthSideSox72]

I blame liberal members of the Supreme Court over the years who have essentially given up on this amendment. They expand the words of the text or read into the text so much that a lot of the clauses are essentially at odds with the original meaning.

 

I'm a Scalia fan, not just because he's a textualist/originalist (even though there are problems with that theory...) but because he has a proper sense of the role of the Court, which is to NOT decide public policy. His motto is "if the people want it, take it to the the legislatures not the courts."

I don't think that's been a factor in this case. IMHO, the two biggest reasons for the slide to federal power are:

 

1. Plain old hunger for power by the federal government (like all governments, its self-feeding in that sense)

2. Most people in this country want an easy answer, and a single scapegoat. Focusing their attention on the federal government makes that happen for them. Therefore, they always demand action from the Feds.

[Balta1701]

I don't think that's been a factor in this case. IMHO, the two biggest reasons for the slide to federal power are:

 

1. Plain old hunger for power by the federal government (like all governments, its self-feeding in that sense)

2. Most people in this country want an easy answer, and a single scapegoat. Focusing their attention on the federal government makes that happen for them. Therefore, they always demand action from the Feds.

3. It's cheaper to lobby 1 large umbrella organization to change the laws to benefit a business than it is to lobby 50 smaller organizations.

[Jenksismyhero]

Trouble is a lot of times people DO want certain laws and groups like the ACLU tie them up in court and sometimes get them knocked off the books because they simply dont like them.

 

 

Oh absolutely.

 

Best work written by Scalia, to me, speaking to this issue is his dissent in Romer v Evans. Colorado held a statewide vote to deny homosexuals preferential treatment with regards to discrimination, effectively taking them out of the 'protected' classes of the states anti-discrimination statutes. The people, through the legislature, made this change, but the Supreme Court said it was unconstitutional.

 

It's a great case to read: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getc...=U10179#Scene_1

 

Here's a snippet from Scalias dissent, which I agree with 110%:

 

 

I would not myself indulge in such official praise for heterosexual monogamy, because I think it no business of the courts (as opposed to the political branches) to take sides in this culture war.

But the Court today has done so, not only by inventing a novel and extravagant constitutional doctrine to take the victory away from traditional forces, but even by verbally disparaging as bigotry adherence to traditional attitudes. To suggest, for example, that this constitutional amendment springs from nothing more than "`a bare . . . desire to harm a politically unpopular group,'" ante, at 13, quoting Department of Agriculture v. Moreno, 413 U.S. 528, 534 (1973), is nothing short of insulting. (It is also nothing short of preposterous to call "politically unpopular" a group which enjoys enormous influence in American media and politics, and which, as the trial court here noted, though composing no more than 4% of the population had the support of 46% of the voters on Amendment 2, see App. to Pet. for Cert. C-18.)

 

When the Court takes sides in the culture wars, it tends to be with the knights rather than the villeins - and more specifically with the Templars, reflecting the views and values of the lawyer class from which the Court's Members are drawn. How that class feels about homosexuality will be evident to anyone who wishes to interview job applicants at virtually any of the Nation's law schools. The interviewer may refuse to offer a job because the applicant is a Republican; because he is an adulterer; because he went to the wrong prep school or belongs to the wrong country club; because he eats snails; because he is a womanizer; because she wears real-animal fur; or even because he hates the Chicago Cubs. But if the interviewer should wish not to be an associate or partner of an applicant because he disapproves of the applicant's homosexuality, then he will have violated the pledge which the Association of American Law Schools requires all its member-schools to exact from job interviewers: "assurance of the employer's willingness" to hire homosexuals. Bylaws of the Association of American Law Schools, Inc. 6-4(B); Executive Committee Regulations of the Association of American Law Schools 6.19, in 1995 Handbook, Association of American Law Schools. This law-school view of what "prejudices" must be stamped out may be contrasted with the more plebeian attitudes that apparently still prevail in the United States Congress, which has been unresponsive to repeated attempts to extend to homosexuals the protections of federal civil rights laws, see, e.g., Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 1994, S. 2238, 103d Cong., 2d Sess. (1994); Civil Rights Amendments of 1975, H. R. 5452, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. (1975), and which took the pains to exclude them specifically from the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, see 42 U.S.C. 12211(a) (1988 ed., Supp. V).

 

 

* * *

 

Today's opinion has no foundation in American constitutional law, and barely pretends to. The people of Colorado have adopted an entirely reasonable provision which does not even disfavor homosexuals in any substantive sense, but merely denies them preferential treatment. Amendment 2 is designed to prevent piecemeal deterioration of the sexual morality favored by a majority of Coloradans, and is not only an appropriate means to that legitimate end, but a means that Americans have employed before. Striking it down is an act, not of judicial judgment, but of political will. I dissent.

[NorthSideSox72]

3. It's cheaper to lobby 1 large umbrella organization to change the laws to benefit a business than it is to lobby 50 smaller organizations.

Also true. And I forgot another...

 

4. Globalization. As we deal more and more with international business, in that particular forum, its easier to have a single government layer here than multiple.

[bmags]

well versed in philosophy and speaks several foreign languages

 

well spoken, good writer

 

Fiscally Conservative, while upholding, yet reforming, some social programs

 

Knowledgable in conservation

 

has traveled the world

 

has traveled the US

 

Respects the position of the president, and its role as only one of the branches of government

 

talks to the people often

 

talks to congress often

 

Understands that there are not just 2 sides to every issue, but an innumerable amount, and finds the compromise that will solve the issue most effectively while knowing what it will hinder, help.

 

helps fight rampant tuition inflation.

 

starts taking measures to ween us off of oil in the next 50 years.

[santo=dorf]

-Sets aside religious beliefs or be an atheist (which will probably have the president be pro-choice and supporting gay marriages)

 

-End "The war on drugs" and create "the war on illegal drug dealers

by regulating and taxing current illegal drugs

 

-Opposes the endangered species act

 

-Supports oil drilling in the US if it creates job and lowers the price of gasoline

[bmags]

Opposes Endangered Species Act? How about they just reform it so that if they are taking a homeowners acreage, they have to pay him double what he'd normally get. But to oppose that bill is a horrible idea.

[NorthSideSox72]

Opposes Endangered Species Act? How about they just reform it so that if they are taking a homeowners acreage, they have to pay him double what he'd normally get. But to oppose that bill is a horrible idea.

People almost never lose their property due to the Endangered Species Act. Its usually just a matter of certain activities (building of certain types, mining or logging, fishing or hunting) being restricted. And the takings clause of the 5th Amendment already allows for compensation due to degradation of value of the property, which is usually handled in a hearing by the agency involved (USFS, BLM, etc.).

[santo=dorf]

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 01:15 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

People almost never lose their property due to the Endangered Species Act. Its usually just a matter of certain activities (building of certain types, mining or logging, fishing or hunting) being restricted. And the takings clause of the 5th Amendment already allows for compensation due to degradation of value of the property, which is usually handled in a hearing by the agency involved (USFS, BLM, etc.).

No, it happens.

 

Why should I or anyone else care about an endangered species? The bill was poorly written takes away logging jobs and areas that can be turned into homes or businesses.

[Rex Kickass]

Oh absolutely.

 

Best work written by Scalia, to me, speaking to this issue is his dissent in Romer v Evans. Colorado held a statewide vote to deny homosexuals preferential treatment with regards to discrimination, effectively taking them out of the 'protected' classes of the states anti-discrimination statutes. The people, through the legislature, made this change, but the Supreme Court said it was unconstitutional.

 

It's a great case to read: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getc...=U10179#Scene_1

 

Here's a snippet from Scalias dissent, which I agree with 110%:

 

What Scalia conveniently ignores is that there is an institutional bias against homosexuality in the United States. He also compares it to political affiliation, being a baseball fan and wearing fur.

 

While its true that there probably are baseball loving fur wearing Republican gay people, sexuality does not necessarily equal behavior. It isn't dangerous to be a Cubs fan. It isn't dangerous to be a Republican. In many places in the US and around the world, it's dangerous to be gay.

 

I'm not a fan of Scalia because his basic premise is wrong, and by writing what he writes, does indeed take a position in the "Culture War." Sexual Preference is sought to be included in anti-discrimination laws because there is a pattern of discrimination and violence that has historically been waged against homosexuals, suspected or real.

[NorthSideSox72]

No, it happens.

 

Why should I or anyone else care about an endangered species? The bill was poorly written takes away logging jobs and areas that can be turned into homes or businesses.

I am sure you could find a few isolated cases. But it is very, very rare for people to lose any property whatsoever to it. As I said, its almost always a usage thing. I did a legal review on the ESA and the Takings Clause in Con Law 2. When it does effect anyone, it usually just effects businesses, and they get compensated. Its material effect on people is tiny. A LOT more people lose their property to zoning changes (by orders of magnitude) than any sort of environmental laws.

 

The concept of why its important to protect specific species is highly complex, and its not an area I know enough to explain it well.

[Jenksismyhero]

What Scalia conveniently ignores is that there is an institutional bias against homosexuality in the United States. He also compares it to political affiliation, being a baseball fan and wearing fur.

 

While its true that there probably are baseball loving fur wearing Republican gay people, sexuality does not necessarily equal behavior. It isn't dangerous to be a Cubs fan. It isn't dangerous to be a Republican. In many places in the US and around the world, it's dangerous to be gay.

 

I'm not a fan of Scalia because his basic premise is wrong, and by writing what he writes, does indeed take a position in the "Culture War." Sexual Preference is sought to be included in anti-discrimination laws because there is a pattern of discrimination and violence that has historically been waged against homosexuals, suspected or real.

 

 

Institutional bias my ass. There's an institutional bias against fat and ugly people, let's create a new protection for them. There are numerous classes that have gone through some form of discrimination before and never received special protection for it, that's his point. The Court is choosing gays as a protected class, even when an entire states population voted the opposite way. That's the Court deciding cultural issues that should be left in the hands of the majority in a particular location.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Why should I or anyone else care about an endangered species?

 

From a purely selfish human perspective, how about because the global ecosystem is the proverbial canary in the coal mine? As natural systems become increasingly fragmented and lose essential functions, the resulting loss of biodiversity is a huge alarm bell telling us that the systems that sustain life on the planet are at their breaking point.

 

You may find it of mere passing interest that we're depleting natural resources at a rate that is 125% higher than the rate of replacement, essentially rendering all resources non-renewable. You might not blink at the evidence suggesting that humanity will require two earths by 2050 to meet our need for natural resources, but it certainly gets my attention.

 

Even if you have not one bit of the stewardship ethic in you that leads others to conclude that preserving the ecological functions and biodiversity of the planet is humanity's moral obligation, you've got to realize that trash and boogie is not a sustainable strategy for the race because there's nowhere else to go.

 

Unless it gives us cheap gas or gives a logger a job, of course. Then, drill it, cut it, burn it, rape it, and trash it by all means.

 

[/threadjack]

Edited October 25, 2006 by FlaSoxxJim

[Rex Kickass]

Institutional bias my ass. There's an institutional bias against fat and ugly people, let's create a new protection for them. There are numerous classes that have gone through some form of discrimination before and never received special protection for it, that's his point. The Court is choosing gays as a protected class, even when an entire states population voted the opposite way. That's the Court deciding cultural issues that should be left in the hands of the majority in a particular location.

 

In my opinion that's like saying that the Supreme Court issuing decisions supporting equal rights for any class of people (race, creed, religion, etc) is deciding a "cultural issue." I don't want my rights up for a vote, and I'm pretty sure you don't either. Either you have the same rights as anyone else, or you don't.

[Jenksismyhero]

Either you have the same rights as anyone else, or you don't.

 

Continuing to offer special protection to certain classes is not equal. Offering special protection to one class but refusing it to others is also not equal. Affirmative action, for example, is another BS exception that the Court has made that cuts against it's Equal Protection mantra.

 

The Court continues to try and 'right a wrong' through it's decisions, which Scalia (and I) argue should be left to the people. This is especially so when the law doesn't discriminate at all. It's purpose was to make everyone equal.

Edited October 25, 2006 by Jenksismybitch

[Rex Kickass]

Except in the vast majority of states, gay people do not have the same rights as you.

[Jenksismyhero]

Except in the vast majority of states, gay people do not have the same rights as you.

 

 

Really? They can't vote? They can't own property? They can't speak in public?

 

Just because it might be more difficult to get a job, for instance, doesn't mean they don't have the same rights. They're given the same opportunities as everyone else. I think his point is that people have a bias against lots of people for lots of different reasons. So what makes this any different? I don't buy the argument that they've been historically discrimanted against...again, lots of people have...

[bmags]

People almost never lose their property due to the Endangered Species Act. Its usually just a matter of certain activities (building of certain types, mining or logging, fishing or hunting) being restricted. And the takings clause of the 5th Amendment already allows for compensation due to degradation of value of the property, which is usually handled in a hearing by the agency involved (USFS, BLM, etc.).

 

i only stated that because its the only objection i've ever heard to that. I've never actually seen someone opposed to promoting a diverse bioculture.

 

I don't buy the argument that they've been historically discrimanted against...again, lots of people have...

 

Well i could buy into the fact that dinosaurs didn't exist, but the evidence is there