Video: GOP Sen. Coburn Tries to Get Elena Kagan to Say Rights Come from God

Wingnuts • Views: 3,363

Sen. Tom Coburn lets his fanaticism hang out during the Kagan confirmation hearings, pushing the by-now very familiar religious right line that there is no separation between religion and government, by trying to get Kagan to say there are “natural” rights that precede the US Constitution.

The organization that uploaded this video to YouTube, “Judicial Crisis Network,” is a religious right judicial advocacy group, which explains why they gave it the absurd, misleading title: “Kagan Won’t Rubber Stamp Declaration of Independence.”

In every one of her exchanges with right wing religious fanatics (and there have been several) in her confirmation hearing, Kagan has come off looking terrific; poised, confident, and secure in her legal knowledge. The fanatics, on the other hand…

Youtube Video

Also see
Sen. Grassley: God Wanted Us to Pack Heat

Jump to bottom

382 comments
1 Baier  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 10:36:44am

I love this game! Oh, I hope someone asks for her opinion on Buttfor.

2 allegro  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 10:38:21am

She is wonderful. I like this woman a lot and think she handled his asshat bullying with aplomb.

3 Cannadian Club Akbar  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 10:38:48am

SAY IT!!

Youtube Video
4 Kragar  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 10:40:15am

I believe Coburn needs to get slapped.

5 Baier  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 10:40:39am

re: #4 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

I believe Coburn needs to get slapped.

With a buttfor…

6 allegro  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 10:40:45am

re: #3 Cannadian Club Akbar

Upding for Sam. Loved that guy.

7 Kragar  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 10:41:51am

re: #5 Baier

With a buttfor…

or a henweigh

8 Fozzie Bear  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 10:42:23am

Anybody going on about “natural” rights needs to spend a few years in the Congo, Sudan, etc. Then tell me how fucking “natural” the rule of law is.

9 greygandalf  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 10:43:39am

the declaration of independence has to too much of a liberal bias. assuming we have too many rights /sarcasm

10 allegro  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 10:44:04am

re: #8 Fozzie Bear

Anybody going on about “natural” rights needs to spend a few years in the Congo, Sudan, etc. Then tell me how fucking “natural” the rule of law is.

Excellent point. Let’s put Coburn in the woods with a pissed off Grizzly and see whose natural rights prevail.

11 Jack Burton  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 10:45:36am

“Do rights come from God? Yes or No? DON’T WAIT FOR THE TRANSLATION!”

12 Cannadian Club Akbar  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 10:46:17am

I have a belief. I belief this guy is now on MyListTM.

13 Gus  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 10:46:51am

I object your honor.

State your case.

Irrelevant.

Sustained.

Get a load of the title of the video, “Kagan Won’t Rubber Stamp Declaration of Independence.” This almost out of the 1950s.

14 The Curmudgeon  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 10:46:59am

I don’t understand the hostility to the idea of natural rights. The Founders believed that they existed. The Ninth Amendment says:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

What’s that all about if there aren’t any rights except those specified in the Constitution?

15 abolitionist  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 10:47:41am

re: #11 ArchangelMichael

“Do rights come from God? Yes or No? DON’T WAIT FOR THE TRANSLATION!”

Translation? (I know, it’s a paraphrase of Stevenson, during the missile crisis.)

16 SpaceJesus  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 10:48:47am

this is the best clip so far

17 Linden Arden  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 10:49:08am

If all our rights come from (presumably a Christian) God then don’t we all have the same rights? Or did God just give Americans these rights?

This would seem to settle the immigration and torture debates for Coburn and Beck, etc but somehow I don’t think they would agree.

18 Fozzie Bear  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 10:50:25am

re: #14 The Curmudgeon

We have what rights we, as people, mutually ensure that we have through the rule of law. That’s my view.

I get what the founders were trying to say, but it’s an incredible distortion of their intent to imply that these “inalienable” rights are bestowed by anything other than ourselves. Rights are extremely fucking alienable, as history has shown again and again, and the ONLY thing that can prevent that is the actions of people, not deities.

That’s my view.

19 Charles Johnson  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 10:50:29am

re: #14 The Curmudgeon

I don’t have a hostility to the idea of “natural rights,” per se. However, a broad definition of “natural rights” is definitely not what Coburn was driving at here.

20 avanti  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 10:50:40am

re: #14 The Curmudgeon

I don’t understand the hostility to the idea of natural rights. The Founders believed that they existed. The Ninth Amendment says:

What’s that all about if there aren’t any rights except those specified in the Constitution?

I was confused by his questions. It seemed he wanted her to say that the right to keep and bear arms is a God given right.

21 Gus  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 10:51:00am

re: #9 greygandalf

the declaration of independence has to too much of a liberal bias. assuming we have too many rights /sarcasm

For sure. And what’s with that part where they mention “Laws of Nature”? Sounds like secular humanism to me.

//

22 Killgore Trout  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 10:51:19am

the ‘Doodling Senator’

23 calochortus  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 10:51:40am

re: #17 Linden Arden

re: #17 Linden Arden

Apparently just Americans, thank you very much.

If these are “natural” rights, how is it that they are God-given? Wouldn’t those be unnatural rights?

24 Kragar  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 10:52:19am

re: #17 Linden Arden

If all our rights come from (presumably a Christian) God then don’t we all have the same rights? Or did God just give Americans these rights?

This would seem to settle the immigration and torture debates for Coburn and Beck, etc but somehow I don’t think they would agree.

All humans have one God given right, given to them by Cthulhu.

You have the right to be delicious.

25 Charles Johnson  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 10:52:32am

re: #20 avanti

I was confused by his questions. It seemed he wanted her to say that the right to keep and bear arms is a God given right.

That’s exactly what he was trying to get her to say.

26 Racer X  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 10:53:39am

Wow.

Dude just got his ass kicked.

27 Charles Johnson  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 10:54:12am

Sen. Grassley: God Wanted Us to Pack Heat.

The GOP was pushing this one hard.

28 Gus  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 10:54:24am

re: #20 avanti

I was confused by his questions. It seemed he wanted her to say that the right to keep and bear arms is a God given right.

He must be one of those Young Earth Gunsmiths (YEG).

29 goddamnedfrank  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 10:54:45am

re: #20 avanti

I was confused by his questions. It seemed he wanted her to say that the right to keep and bear arms is a God given right.

I learn something new every day.

30 Mad Al-Jaffee  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 10:55:32am

re: #27 Charles

Sen. Grassley: God Wanted Us to Pack Heat.

The GOP was pushing this one hard.

Well, he did give us the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch.

31 Cannadian Club Akbar  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 10:55:49am

I’m glad God didn’t give Adam and Eve glocks. We might not be here right now.
/

32 Fozzie Bear  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 10:56:27am

re: #30 Mad Al-Jaffee

One…
Two…
Five!
Three sir.
Three!

*toss*

33 Racer X  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 10:56:51am

Todd Rundgren 2004 - God Said

Youtube Video
34 jamesfirecat  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 10:57:18am

They may be god given to us, but the only reason we are able to make use of those rights is that our government safe guards them for us…

35 Jack Burton  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 10:57:31am

re: #32 Fozzie Bear

One…
Two…
Five!
Three sir.
Three!

*toss*

Lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who being naughty in My sight, shall snuff it.

36 Linden Arden  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 10:57:56am

So God gave us the right to pack heat - but He did not give Mexicans the right to immigrate into the US without federal permission.

It seems confusing.

37 Gus  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 10:58:07am

Let us turn now to the Canon of Smith and Wesson. /

38 The Curmudgeon  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 10:58:49am

re: #19 Charles

I don’t have a hostility to the idea of “natural rights,” per se. However, a broad definition of “natural rights” is definitely not what Coburn was driving at here.

Natural rights — the concept Jefferson was talking about in the Declaration — don’t come from the sky. They’re inherent in our nature. If, for example, we don’t have the natural right of self-defense, then what’s left to us? It’s very disturbing that Kagan doesn’t just come out and say that.

39 Gus  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 10:59:05am

re: #36 Linden Arden

So God gave us the right to pack heat - but He did not give Mexicans the right to immigrate into the US without federal permission.

It seems confusing.

You think “he” would have made it so that humans wouldn’t need guns. Being that he’s this supreme being.

/

40 greygandalf  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 10:59:55am

re: #34 jamesfirecat

They may be god given to us, but the only reason we are able to make use of those rights is that our government safe guards them for us…

safe guards them or does the opposite like when blacks were 3/5 a person

41 blueraven  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 11:00:20am

re: #4 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

I believe Coburn needs to get slapped.

I believe he did just get slapped by Elena Kagan.

42 Shiplord Kirel  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 11:00:33am

At the risk of belaboring the obvious, one reason the Declaration of Independence refers to certain rights as natural rather than constitutional is because the CONSTITUTION DIDN’T EXIST YET.
The Constitution gave formal, legal status to ideas that had been expressed many times before, including in the Declaration of Independence. There was obviously some pre-existing basis for the view of individual and collective rights incorporated by the framers into the Constitution. The framers’ collective vision of rights wasn’t a sudden revelation like Paul on the road to Damascus, after all. It was in fact based on Enlightenment era ideas and philosophies that had been under development for centuries.

43 Political Atheist  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 11:00:37am

Religious considerations aside-“God given” rights means these principles are larger than us and our own written laws. That way we hope they stay here for us. Not to be set aside under some real or imagined threat. Certain rights are to be held above the rest of the body of law. Our freedoms to speak, defend ourselves, assemble, worship as we choose or not to at all, etc.

44 Kragar  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 11:01:07am

re: #36 Linden Arden

So God gave us the right to pack heat - but He did not give Mexicans the right to immigrate into the US without federal permission.

It seems confusing.

I’m still confused with the whole being granted free will and the ability to execise cognitive thought, then being told you need to live your life according to one book and if you don’t, you’re gonna burn.

45 jamesfirecat  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 11:01:08am

re: #38 The Curmudgeon

Natural rights — the concept Jefferson was talking about in the Declaration — don’t come from the sky. They’re inherent in our nature. If, for example, we don’t have the natural right of self-defense, then what’s left to us? It’s very disturbing that Kagan doesn’t just come out and say that.

///Yes, because there are so many rulings that come before the supreme court on the issue of weather or not people are allowed to defend themselves!

(Before anyone says it I view gun ownership as different from a clear cut “right to self defense” since it’s about owning a tool with the intent of using it for self defense)

46 Feline Fearless Leader  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 11:03:00am

re: #39 Gus 802

You think “he” would have made it so that humans wouldn’t need guns. Being that he’s this supreme being.

/

To busy messing around with slugs and daffodils. And nipples on men.

/

47 engineer cat  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 11:03:44am

forgive me please if this has already been posted

Sen. Graham predicts Tea Party movement will eventually ‘die out’
By Jordan Fabian - 07/01/10 11:57 AM ET

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who has earned the ire of Tea Party groups for his penchant for negotiating with Democrats, predicted this week the movement will “die out.”

Graham, who has partnered with Democrats on immigration reform and energy and climate legislation, made the observation in a New York Times Magazine profile titled “Lindsey Graham, This Year’s Maverick” to be published this Sunday:

“Everything I’m doing now in terms of talking about climate, talking about immigration, talking about Gitmo is completely opposite of where the Tea Party movement’s at,” Graham said as Cato drove him to the city of Greenwood, where he was to give a commencement address at Lander University later that morning. On four occasions, Graham met with Tea Party groups. The first, in his Senate office, was “very, very contentious,” he recalled. During a later meeting, in Charleston, Graham said he challenged them: “ ‘What do you want to do? You take back your country — and do what with it?’ … Everybody went from being kind of hostile to just dead silent.”

In a previous conversation, Graham told me: “The problem with the Tea Party, I think it’s just unsustainable because they can never come up with a coherent vision for governing the country. It will die out.” Now he said, in a tone of casual lament: “We don’t have a lot of Reagan-type leaders in our party. Remember Ronald Reagan Democrats? I want a Republican that can attract Democrats.” Chortling, he added, “Ronald Reagan would have a hard time getting elected as a Republican today.”

48 Varek Raith  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 11:04:11am

God said I have the right to openly carry a light saber where ever I please.

49 Cannadian Club Akbar  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 11:04:58am

man boobs would look funny without nipples. Just sayinre: #46 oaktree

To busy messing around with slugs and daffodils. And nipples on men.

Man boobs would look funny without nipples. Just sayin’.
/

50 Political Atheist  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 11:05:11am

re: #42 Shiplord Kirel

For those who care, read the Federalist and anti Federalist papers for perspective on the people at the time.

51 Cannadian Club Akbar  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 11:05:36am

re: #49 Cannadian Club Akbar

man boobs would look funny without nipples. Just sayin

I fucked that up. Geez.

52 abolitionist  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 11:06:23am

re: #25 Charles

That’s exactly what he was trying to get her to say.

IIRC, Coburn had run up the flagpole the idea of self-defense as a natural right, to see if Kagan would salute, but she would not. (Shortly before this clip.)

53 Fozzie Bear  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 11:06:54am

re: #49 Cannadian Club Akbar

Moobs. We call them moobs.

54 Political Atheist  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 11:08:47am

As soon as Freedom of worship is acknowledged as a “God Given” right-That’s the end of the theocrats’ fantasy under the law.

55 Charles Johnson  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 11:08:53am

re: #38 The Curmudgeon

Natural rights — the concept Jefferson was talking about in the Declaration — don’t come from the sky. They’re inherent in our nature. If, for example, we don’t have the natural right of self-defense, then what’s left to us? It’s very disturbing that Kagan doesn’t just come out and say that.

I don’t agree. Coburn was going for a big gotcha, and Kagan knew it, so she limited her response specifically to the job of a Supreme Court justice — interpreting and enforcing the law and the Constitution.

Come on, don’t you recognize the religious right agenda in this one?

56 Linden Arden  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 11:08:55am

re: #52 abolitionist

IIRC, Coburn had run up the flagpole the idea of self-defense as a natural right, to see if Kagan would salute, but she would not. (Shortly before this clip.)

Where can I find a list of these natural rights?

57 Political Atheist  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 11:10:35am

re: #52 abolitionist

It is a natural right. Imagine a law that specifically removed that right from you. How would that work out for a society?

58 goddamnedfrank  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 11:11:55am

re: #48 Varek Raith

God said I have the right to openly carry a light saber where ever I please.

You have the right, but it’s a rookie mistake and I hate to see you make it. They’re fairly useless against Vogon poetry, except for quick suicide.

Youtube Video
59 greygandalf  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 11:12:18am

re: #56 Linden Arden

Where can I find a list of these natural rights?

Do you own your body? if the answer is yes. You have one natural right. Right to not be enslaved, violated, etc. Where the enforcement of this right would come from I have no idea.

60 The Curmudgeon  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 11:12:19am

re: #55 Charles

I don’t agree. Coburn was going for a big gotcha, and Kagan knew it, so she limited her response specifically to the job of a Supreme Court justice — interpreting and enforcing the law and the Constitution.

Come on, don’t you recognize the religious right agenda in this one?

Of course I see it. But in response, Kagan could have spoken about natural rights. Instead she fell into his trap. She said, in effect, that if a right isn’t in the Constitution then it doesn’t exist. That’s not only wrong, it contradicts the Ninth.

61 brownbagj  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 11:12:34am

Can we just confirm her already? I don’t care if she is liberal or conservative. Elections have consequences and the President should be able to have his choice for the Supreme Court as long as they meet the minimum requirements.

And I am a conservative….Obama has earned the right to name her or basically anyone else he chooses.

I HATE this stuff.

62 Racer X  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 11:13:56am

re: #61 brownbagj

Can we just confirm her already? I don’t care if she is liberal or conservative. Elections have consequences and the President should be able to have his choice for the Supreme Court as long as they meet the minimum requirements.

And I am a conservative…Obama has earned the right to name her or basically anyone else he chooses.

I HATE this stuff.

The LAW does not work that way.

63 brownbagj  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 11:15:12am

re: #62 Racer X

The LAW does not work that way.

This charade has nothing to do with the spirit of the LAW. This is grandstanding bs.

64 Varek Raith  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 11:15:40am

re: #60 The Curmudgeon

Of course I see it. But in response, Kagan could have spoken about natural rights. Instead she fell into his trap. She said, in effect, that if a right isn’t in the Constitution then it doesn’t exist. That’s not only wrong, it contradicts the Ninth.


Forgive my ignorance, but is this not what a strict constructionist believes?

65 greygandalf  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 11:16:00am

re: #61 brownbagj


And I am a conservative…Obama has earned the right to name her or basically anyone else he chooses.


Actually, he hasn’t earned that. The justice must go through the process. I guess your not conservative enough to know the constitution.

66 allegro  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 11:16:35am

re: #59 greygandalf

Do you own your body?

Only if you are an adult heterosexual male. The rest, not so much.

67 brownbagj  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 11:16:36am

BTW, if these rights are God given…do atheists have no rights? This is stupid.

When the framers wrote this, my understanding is that these are rights we are born with as humans, religious beliefs aside. Or am I just a public schooled hick?

68 brownbagj  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 11:17:43am

re: #65 greygandalf

Actually, he hasn’t earned that. The justice must go through the process. I guess your not conservative enough to know the constitution.

Yes, yes. I understand the “law.” But I do not think these ‘proceedings” have anything to do with that. I am all for a rigorous review. I am not for witch hunts.

69 Varek Raith  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 11:17:50am

re: #66 allegro

Only if you are an adult heterosexual male. The rest, not so much.

Or pregnant…

70 wrenchwench  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 11:17:54am

re: #60 The Curmudgeon

Of course I see it. But in response, Kagan could have spoken about natural rights. Instead she fell into his trap. She said, in effect, that if a right isn’t in the Constitution then it doesn’t exist. That’s not only wrong, it contradicts the Ninth.

I saw her as totally evading his trap. She said he should want her to act on the basis of law, rather than her beliefs.

71 calochortus  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 11:18:35am

re: #59 greygandalf

Do you own your body? if the answer is yes. You have one natural right. Right to not be enslaved, violated, etc. Where the enforcement of this right would come from I have no idea.

I think natural rights is a fairly useless concept in law. I don’t think you’ll get much agreement on what those “natural rights” actually are. As a woman I may in fact not own my own body according to many folks. A fetus would take precedence regardless of how the conception occurred. I might not have the right of self defense against, say, my husband under some theologies.

72 Sol Berdinowitz  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 11:18:43am

re: #67 brownbagj

BTW, if these rights are God given…do atheists have no rights? This is stupid.

When the framers wrote this, my understanding is that these are rights we are born with as humans, religious beliefs aside. Or am I just a public schooled hick?

He was trying to get her out on to thin ice on this point to sort of hint that the godless have no rights. All posturing. Let them have their day in the sun, though, it is all part of the process. Cannot imagine that she will get Borked by this lot.

73 abolitionist  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 11:18:47am

re: #56 Linden Arden

Where can I find a list of these natural rights?

There is no such list that I know of. The general emphasis of the Bill of Rights is on what government may not do. There is language expressing the idea that powers not explicitly or implicitly given to our federal government are reserved for the states, or the people.

74 Racer X  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 11:19:38am

re: #70 wrenchwench

I saw her as totally evading his trap. She said he should want her to act on the basis of law, rather than her beliefs.

And that is exactly the right answer. What she believes, or what any judge believes regarding their own faith, is irrelevant with respect to the law.

75 Sol Berdinowitz  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 11:20:13am

re: #73 abolitionist

There is no such list that I know of. The general emphasis of the Bill of Rights is on what government may not do. There is language expressing the idea that powers not explicitly or implicitly given to our federal government are reserved for the states, or the people.

Ah, the states, you mean, like the right to sit at a lunch counter if you are black?

76 Mad Al-Jaffee  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 11:20:28am

re: #59 greygandalf

Do you own your body? if the answer is yes. You have one natural right. Right to not be enslaved, violated, etc. Where the enforcement of this right would come from I have no idea.

You may have one natural right, but you have to fight for your right to party.

77 sattv4u2  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 11:21:29am

re: #61 brownbagj

I HATE this stuff.

upding in agreement with that

HOWEVER, it is congresses roll to advise and consent

Perhaps if they weren’t televised it would cut down the theatrics,,AND ,, it’s been happening for decades from both sides

78 ReamWorks SKG  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 11:21:37am

I’m just amazed at how incoherent and unprepared these _questioners_ are, though Sen. Grassley seems a bit more coherent than Sen. Coburn, who misquoted one of the most famous lines in the Declaration of Independence—twice.

79 abolitionist  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 11:23:03am

re: #57 Rightwingconspirator

It is a natural right. Imagine a law that specifically removed that right from you. How would that work out for a society?

I’m seeing in the UK how that’s working out. Not so good.

80 The Curmudgeon  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 11:23:09am

re: #64 Varek Raith

Forgive my ignorance, but is this not what a strict constructionist believes?

I forgive you. The answer is “no.” The Ninth Amendment says there are other rights, although not listed in the Constitution. The Tenth Amendment says the powers delegated to the national government is the exclusive list. Those are the “rules of construction” that are built into the Constitution: liberal construction on rights, strict construction on powers. That’s what an “original intent” guy (like your humble Curmudgeon) believes.

81 Varek Raith  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 11:24:10am

re: #80 The Curmudgeon

I forgive you. The answer is “no.” The Ninth Amendment says there are other rights, although not listed in the Constitution. The Tenth Amendment says the powers delegated to the national government is the exclusive list. Those are the “rules of construction” that are built into the Constitution: liberal construction on rights, strict construction on powers. That’s what an “original intent” guy (like your humble Curmudgeon) believes.

Thanks for the explanation.

82 Lidane  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 11:24:58am

re: #50 Rightwingconspirator

For those who care, read the Federalist and anti Federalist papers for perspective on the people at the time.

And for the tech-savvy, you can actually carry them around with you, along with a bunch of other important documents. I like having them handy. Makes discussing things a lot easier with folks. :)

83 sattv4u2  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 11:25:50am

re: #82 Lidane

And for the tech-savvy, you can actually carry them around with you, along with a bunch of other important documents. I like having them handy. Makes discussing things a lot easier with folks. :)

wow ,, I’m lucky if I can remember to carry my wallet and keys !!

//

84 Cannadian Club Akbar  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 11:26:17am

re: #82 Lidane

Very cool.

85 Varek Raith  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 11:26:24am

re: #83 sattv4u2

wow ,, I’m lucky if I can remember to carry my wallet and keys !!

//

Did you check your pockets, gramps???
/

86 sattv4u2  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 11:26:58am

re: #85 Varek Raith

Did you check your pockets, gramps???
/

for me to have pockets wouldn’t I have to be wearing pants??

87 wrenchwench  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 11:27:16am

re: #74 Racer X

And that is exactly the right answer. What she believes, or what any judge believes regarding their own faith, is irrelevant with respect to the law.

Exactly. What if Coburn believed rights came from Christ? Would he conclude (if he hasn’t already) that Kagan is unqualified?

88 Varek Raith  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 11:27:20am

re: #86 sattv4u2

for me to have pockets wouldn’t I have to be wearing pants??

Ah…
Good point.

89 acacia  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 11:27:29am

I have to agree with Coburn on this one. I’m a bit concerned when a nominee to the Supreme Court - or any other position of authority in our government - is not willing to say they agree with the principles in the greatest political document ever written - the Declaration of Independence. Jefferson is no fan of the religious right - just ask the Texas school book committee who has written him out so I don’t see this as a fanatical religious right agenda thing. Kagan could and should have said that she accepts the principles of the Declaration of Independence. End of story. We DO have inalienable rights that are with the people. That is the most important principle our country was founded on and to ask someone to agree with that principle is not unreasonable. Quite the contrary it is disturbing when the person won’t agree with it.

90 Cannadian Club Akbar  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 11:27:37am

re: #86 sattv4u2

for me to have pockets wouldn’t I have to be wearing pants??

You could just carry the pants.

91 ReamWorks SKG  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 11:28:12am

It seems to me that the authors of the Declaration of Independence (which, of course, isn’t law) tried to be as broad as possible when describing “natural rights”

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,”

Note the use of the word “Creator” instead of “G-d” here.

“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”

Again, an explicit effort to write both “the laws of nature” and “Nature’s G-d” to allow for a broad spectrum of religious, deist, or agnostic beliefs.

I’ve always thought they were trying to be as broad as possible when describing natural rights, and purposely avoiding a specific recognition of one religious tradition’s Creator.

But what do I know? I’m a consultant, not a Congressman.

92 reloadingisnotahobby  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 11:28:14am

re: #86 sattv4u2

for me to have pockets wouldn’t I have to be wearing pants??

…..Is that a birth mark?
Or did ya sit on something really HOT!!!

93 Political Atheist  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 11:28:17am

re: #71 calochortus

I think natural rights is a fairly useless concept in law. I don’t think you’ll get much agreement on what those “natural rights” actually are. As a woman I may in fact not own my own body according to many folks. A fetus would take precedence regardless of how the conception occurred. I might not have the right of self defense against, say, my husband under some theologies.


But you would have that right here, undeniably. None of those theologies pass constitutional muster. Not even close. The founders did come to an agreement on those rights mentioned in the Declaration and the Bill of Rights

94 sattv4u2  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 11:28:32am

re: #90 Cannadian Club Akbar

You could just carry the pants.

FINALLY, a solution to my problem!

95 Political Atheist  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 11:29:04am

re: #79 abolitionist

I’m seeing in the UK how that’s working out. Not so good.

Exactly. They suffer from a lack of the first amendment in certain ways too.

96 sattv4u2  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 11:29:16am

re: #92 reloadingisnotahobby

…Is that a birth mark?
Or did ya sit on something really HOT!!!

nahh,,, it’s a lipstick mark. I told someone to kiss my ass and by God, ,they DID !

97 lawhawk  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 11:29:23am

re: #65 greygandalf

The President is charged with the right to nominate whoever he damned well pleases (it’s why elections matter). It is the Senate that gets to advise and consent to the nomination.

This is a nontrivial matter and it’s one that ought to be taken seriously. The current confirmation process is a dog and pony show where the Senators grandstand and observers are all hoping for a gotcha moment.

98 lawhawk  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 11:30:18am

re: #78 reuven

I’m not.

99 Varek Raith  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 11:30:33am

re: #97 lawhawk

The President is charged with the right to nominate whoever he damned well pleases (it’s why elections matter). It is the Senate that gets to advise and consent to the nomination.

This is a nontrivial matter and it’s one that ought to be taken seriously. The current confirmation process is a dog and pony show where the Senators grandstand and observers are all hoping for a gotcha moment.

This may be…illegal?, but I think there should be no cameras during these events.

100 abolitionist  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 11:31:25am

re: #75 ralphieboy

Ah, the states, you mean, like the right to sit at a lunch counter if you are black?

Indeed. Eliminating unfairness in commerce has been a priority for wise rulers since ancient times. I think the icon of the blindfolded woman with the scales (and a sword) expresses that idea wonderfully, and not just the idea of equal protection in legal proceedings.

101 goddamnedfrank  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 11:31:48am

re: #80 The Curmudgeon

I forgive you. The answer is “no.” The Ninth Amendment says there are other rights, although not listed in the Constitution. The Tenth Amendment says the powers delegated to the national government is the exclusive list. Those are the “rules of construction” that are built into the Constitution: liberal construction on rights, strict construction on powers. That’s what an “original intent” guy (like your humble Curmudgeon) believes.

Fantastic, care to explain Scalia’s dissent in Lawrence v. Texas then. He says that there’s no right to privacy and that the State’s have the power to regulate and criminalize select private sex acts between consenting adults. Seems odd considering your explanation of how constructionism works, what with Scalia being such a strict constructionist and all.

In practice I think the term just means conservative ideological judicial activism, without regards to the law, personal integrity or professional consistency.

102 ReamWorks SKG  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 11:32:08am

I like the fact that Kagan has no accent. It’s nice to hear people who talk like me.

103 Charles Johnson  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 11:32:27am

re: #60 The Curmudgeon

She said, in effect, that if a right isn’t in the Constitution then it doesn’t exist. That’s not only wrong, it contradicts the Ninth.

That’s quite a lot to read into what Kagan said. She said her job as a Justice will be to enforce the Constitution. In fact, she said, “I am not saying I don’t believe there are pre-existing rights, but my job is to enforce the Constitution.”

104 Cannadian Club Akbar  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 11:32:53am

re: #102 reuven

I like the fact that Kagan has no accent. It’s nice to hear people who talk like me.

Boring!!
///

105 sattv4u2  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 11:33:40am

re: #99 Varek Raith

This may be…illegal?, but I think there should be no cameras during these events.

my point in #77. It’s only been the last two or so decades that they have been televised. We survived 200+ years without them being

The Supreme Court isn’t, but we still know whats going on (detailed transcripts complete with opinions from both sides

106 acacia  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 11:34:47am

re: #91 reuven

You’re absolutely right. Jefferson’s concept of “God” or the “Creator” as he called him in the Declaration of Independence was very broad. In fact, he felt that many of the “rules” of the church were silly because they were human made and not truly God’s rules. The important point of his world view is that the only rights that exist are with the people and inherent in our nature as humans who are derived from our “Creator.”

107 Cannadian Club Akbar  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 11:34:54am

re: #105 sattv4u2

And the pretty drawings.

108 Charles Johnson  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 11:35:37am

And Coburn, by the way, was also very explicitly trying to get Kagan to say that “pre-existing rights” come from God. Right there in the video.

This is one of those rhetorical traps that has no “right” answer. No matter how Kagan replied, the fanatics were going to use it to smear her. So she (correctly) decided to give as narrow and specific an answer as possible.

The really disturbing part to me is that fanatics like Coburn, Sessions, and Grassley are in office at all.

109 Mad Al-Jaffee  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 11:35:51am

re: #90 Cannadian Club Akbar

You could just carry the pants.

Or tie them around your waist.

110 kingkenrod  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 11:36:05am

I don’t like Kagan’s response very much. “I don’t have a view of what our natural rights…”. I’ve always seen the Constitution as protecting our natural rights, not granting them. A justice should have a well-formed view of the concept. Perhaps she does, she just didn’t want to go there with Coburn.

And why does she say it’s her job to “enforce” the Constitution? It’s not, this is executive branch power. Perhaps she spoke too quickly or misspoke? Words are important.

111 Varek Raith  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 11:36:12am

Declaration of Independence ≠ Constitutional Law

112 calochortus  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 11:37:17am

re: #93 Rightwingconspirator

Women in the US have a theoretical right to self defense against an abusive husband. Practically speaking they don’t necessarily have adequate support from law enforcement. The situation is improving, but there have certainly been women who were abused, and the local police sided with the husband.

The broader question remains-whose interpretation of “natural rights” would prevail? The founding fathers who said all men were created equal clearly were not thinking of blacks, whether or not they intended “men” to extend in any way to women.

113 wrenchwench  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 11:37:33am

re: #110 kingkenrod

Perhaps she does, she just didn’t want to go there with Coburn.

I think this is the case.

114 The Curmudgeon  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 11:38:53am

re: #101 goddamnedfrank

Fantastic, care to explain Scalia’s dissent in Lawrence v. Texas then. He says that there’s no right to privacy and that the State’s have the power to regulate and criminalize select private sex acts between consenting adults. Seems odd considering your explanation of how constructionism works, what with Scalia being such a strict constructionist and all.

I can’t explain everything. Nor do I think that just because someone claims something is his right, that it really is a fundamental right. Sometimes such claims are correct (in my opinion) and sometimes they’re debatable. Scalia is on his own here; I won’t defend him. (But hey, you do believe that the states have some powers, don’t you?)

115 Mad Al-Jaffee  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 11:39:07am

Supreme Court Overturns Car
[Link: www.theonion.com…]

116 Racer X  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 11:40:15am

I’m becoming less interested in politics. My team is one big FAIL. I’m not ready to switch teams. Perhaps this is the wrong attitude to take but there it is.

117 Mad Al-Jaffee  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 11:40:46am

Right To Privacy Not Guaranteed By Constitution, Says Supreme Court Justice Peeking In Bathroom Window

[Link: www.theonion.com…]

118 brownbagj  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 11:41:11am

re: #116 Racer X

I’m becoming less interested in politics. My team is one big FAIL. I’m not ready to switch teams. Perhaps this is the wrong attitude to take but there it is.

I understand your pain. I really do. I am socially liberal and fiscally conservative. I am a man without a party.

119 Cannadian Club Akbar  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 11:42:05am

re: #116 Racer X

I’m becoming less interested in politics. My team is one big FAIL. I’m not ready to switch teams. Perhaps this is the wrong attitude to take but there it is.

re: #118 brownbagj

I understand your pain. I really do. I am socially liberal and fiscally conservative. I am a man without a party.

Ditto.

120 Cannadian Club Akbar  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 11:42:46am

work calls. See ya’ll tonight.

121 albusteve  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 11:43:46am

re: #116 Racer X

I’m becoming less interested in politics. My team is one big FAIL. I’m not ready to switch teams. Perhaps this is the wrong attitude to take but there it is.

I’m more of an onlooker these days…govt is a three ring clusterfuck..

nothing but bad news
and it’s wearing kinda thin
every new situation
seems to be a no win
business as usual
LF

122 gamark  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 11:44:07am

re: #18 Fozzie Bear

I’m trying to wrap my head around your viewpoint. Are you saying that we as living beings, have no rights other than those recognized by some sort of collective agreement amongst ourselves? I think your view conflates possession of rights with recognition of those rights by others.

I’m an atheist and I certainly disagree with folks like Coburn who believe they get certain of their rights from $DEITY. But it doesn’t bother me that they think this because it doesn’t conflict with my view that I possess certain rights simply by virtue of being born. This doesn’t mean that other folks won’t violate those rights. If I’m murdered by someone, that doesn’t mean I didn’t have the right to life.

123 sattv4u2  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 11:44:13am

re: #116 Racer X

re: #118 brownbagj

Look locally for someone you CAN support, even if you have to do it yourself

I’m not saying run out and try to win a senate seat tomorrow, but perhaps something that meets once/ twice a month. Something you have a stake in. School board,, county commissions. I have served on two school boards in two different parts of the country.

124 Batman  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 11:45:16am

Those who believe human rights come specifically from god often believe those who aren’t specifically US citizens don’t have any of those rights.

125 Shiplord Kirel  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 11:46:40am

re: #108 Charles

And Coburn, by the way, was also very explicitly trying to get Kagan to say that “pre-existing rights” come from God. Right there in the video.

This is one of those rhetorical traps that has no “right” answer. No matter how Kagan replied, the fanatics were going to use it to smear her. So she (correctly) decided to give as narrow and specific an answer as possible.

The really disturbing part to me is that fanatics like Coburn, Sessions, and Grassley are in office at all.

I would have used Coburn’s question to put in a plug for evolution.

“I don’t know about God per se, Senator, but self-preservation and, by extension, self-defense, are evolutionary imperatives that have existed for at least half a billion years. Without them our country and our species could not have survived; unless, of course, you believe that we have survived only because of divine favor.”

His head would have exploded.

126 brownbagj  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 11:46:49am

re: #124 nonsense

Those who believe human rights come specifically from god often believe those who aren’t specifically US citizens don’t have any of those rights.

Of course they don’t. God only blesses the USA.

//

127 Linden Arden  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 11:47:09am

FWIW, Justice Sotomayor handled this line of questioning by Coburn beautifully.

She said the right to self-defense is defined by law.

For instance (according to Sotomayor) , if someone threatened you from afar you do NOT have the right to hunt them down and kill them in order to protect yourself.

“But your honor, he threatened my life. I had to drive 80 miles and kill him to protect myself” - just does not work.

128 sattv4u2  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 11:47:20am

re: #124 nonsense

Those who believe human rights come specifically from god often believe those who aren’t specifically US citizens don’t have any of those rights.

now I know why you chose that screename

1st and foremost, the document doesn’t state that they come from “god”

129 goddamnedfrank  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 11:49:22am

re: #114 The Curmudgeon

I can’t explain everything. Nor do I think that just because someone claims something is his right, that it really is a fundamental right. Sometimes such claims are correct (in my opinion) and sometimes they’re debatable. Scalia is on his own here; I won’t defend him. (But hey, you do believe that the states have some powers, don’t you?)

Christ, how wishy washy! Either adults have the fundamental right, in private, to consensually get each other off how they please, or they don’t. Which is it?

You’re proving my point, constructionism is a beard, a ruse. Of course State’s have “some powers,” but you’re dodging the point: A self identified constructionist like yourself should be able to point out where in the Constitution lies the power to regulate such consensual sex acts, and if unable to do so you should denounce Scalia in no uncertain terms.

130 Interesting Times  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 11:49:24am

re: #108 Charles

And Coburn, by the way, was also very explicitly trying to get Kagan to say that “pre-existing rights” come from God. Right there in the video. This is one of those rhetorical traps that has no “right” answer.

“Do you believe rights come from God?”

Perhaps, instead of an answer, one should reply with a question of one’s own:

“Which one?”

131 acacia  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 11:49:43am

re: #101 goddamnedfrank

I disagree with the Scalia reference. He doesn’t say that there is no fundamental interest in privacy. What he says is that there is no fundamental interest in same sex sodomy.

132 wrenchwench  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 11:49:47am

re: #125 Shiplord Kirel

You win the thread, or the internet, or whatever it is that you want.

But only one ding, dangit.

133 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 11:50:38am

Some stories don’t have a clear beginning middle and end. Life is about not knowing, having to change, taking the moment and making the best of it, without knowing what’s going to happen next. Delicious ambiguity…
-Gilda Radner

No special reason for posting that. Just saw it for the first time a few minutes ago.

134 reloadingisnotahobby  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 11:51:05am

re: #124 nonsense

Those who believe human rights come specifically from god often believe those who aren’t specifically US citizens don’t have any of those rights.


Are you mixing Illegal immigration with inalienable rights?

135 calochortus  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 11:51:10am

re: #122 gamark

I’m an atheist, myself. I have no idea how a right could exist outside of it being granted by people. One definition of rights is: Powers or privileges granted by an agreement or law. I don’t see how you can say a slave has natural rights, they just lack access to those rights, rather than they ought to have rights.

136 zora  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 11:51:29am

re: #128 sattv4u2

i think that’s the whole point of this discussion. the document doesn’t state that human rights comes from god; however, these men believe that it does or at least implies it. the right to bear arms is a natural right from god. yes, it sounds crazy, but this is the point they want to make.

137 Lidane  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 11:51:50am

re: #131 acacia

He doesn’t say that there is no fundamental interest in privacy. What he says is that there is no fundamental interest in same sex sodomy.

Wait, what? Explain what you’re trying to say here.

138 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 11:52:06am

re: #135 calochortus

They ought not be slaves.

139 HoosierHoops  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 11:52:10am

re: #133 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Some stories don’t have a clear beginning middle and end. Life is about not knowing, having to change, taking the moment and making the best of it, without knowing what’s going to happen next. Delicious ambiguity…
-Gilda Radner

No special reason for posting that. Just saw it for the first time a few minutes ago.

I read her book years ago..Special woman..
Thanks for the quote

140 allegro  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 11:52:47am

re: #128 sattv4u2

nonsense:

Those who believe human rights come specifically from god often believe those who aren’t specifically US citizens don’t have any of those rights.

sattv4u:

now I know why you chose that screename

1st and foremost, the document doesn’t state that they come from “god”

Before you insult people, perhaps you might check your reading of the statement actually made where he/she didn’t mention the document when syaing “those who…”

141 brownbagj  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 11:52:58am

re: #138 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

They ought not be slaves.

Wonder why they didn’t think of that sooner?

//

142 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 11:53:12am

re: #139 HoosierHoops

Been meaning to catch you and offer my concern for your friend. Sunday morning, you’re on.

143 Political Atheist  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 11:54:25am

re: #112 calochortus
Forgive the link I chose I’m working quickly to get this stuff at all…

Actually some were quite torn by the slavery issue.

Benjamin Franklin explained that this separation from Britain was necessary since every attempt among the Colonies to end slavery had been thwarted or reversed by the British Crown. In fact, in the years following America’s separation from Great Britain, many of the Founding Fathers who had owned slaves released them (e.g., John Dickinson, Ceasar Rodney, William Livingston, George Washington, George Wythe, John Randolph, and others).

It is true, however, that not all of the Founders from the South opposed slavery. According to the testimony of Thomas Jefferson, John Rutledge, and James Madison, those from North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia favored slavery.

Nevertheless, despite the support in those states for slavery, the clear majority of the Founders was opposed to this evil—and their support went beyond words.

For example, in 1774, Benjamin Franklin and Benjamin Rush founded America’s first antislavery society; John Jay was president of a similar society in New York. When Constitution signer William Livingston heard of the New York society, he, as Governor of New Jersey, wrote them, offering:

“I would most ardently wish to become a member of it [the society in New York] and… I can safely promise them that neither my tongue, nor my pen, nor purse shall be wanting to promote the abolition of what to me appears so inconsistent with humanity and Christianity… May the great and the equal Father of the human race, who has expressly declared His abhorrence of oppression, and that He is no respecter of persons, succeed a design so laudably calculated to undo the heavy burdens, to let the oppressed go free, and to break every yoke.”

Other prominent Founding Fathers who were members of societies for ending slavery included Richard Bassett, James Madison, James Monroe, Bushrod Washington, Charles Carroll, William Few, John Marshall, Richard Stockton, Zephaniah Swift, and many more.

144 calochortus  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 11:54:44am

re: #138 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

They absolutely ought not be slaves, but this fact has escaped most people over the vast expanse of human history. That doesn’t argue for a deeply embedded “natural right” given either by god or nature.

145 HoosierHoops  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 11:55:05am

re: #142 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Been meaning to catch you and offer my concern for your friend. Sunday morning, you’re on.

Thanks Veggie..I appreciate it

146 Crimsonfisted  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 11:55:50am

re: #50 Rightwingconspirator

For those who care, read the Federalist and anti Federalist papers for perspective on the people at the time.

I care and THANKS! The anti one is what I couldn’t find.

147 Political Atheist  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 11:57:05am

re: #146 Crimsonfisted

I care and THANKS! The anti one is what I couldn’t find.

My pleasure. Anti Idiotarian means, among other things we look at both sides.

148 Linden Arden  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 11:57:24am

The Right to Privacy goes back to Griswold vs. Connecticut where the state ban on birth control pills was ruled unConstitutional.

The Catholic Church screamed bloody murder - still is.

149 Feline Fearless Leader  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 11:57:31am

re: #122 gamark

I’m trying to wrap my head around your viewpoint. Are you saying that we as living beings, have no rights other than those recognized by some sort of collective agreement amongst ourselves? I think your view conflates possession of rights with recognition of those rights by others.

I’m an atheist and I certainly disagree with folks like Coburn who believe they get certain of their rights from $DEITY. But it doesn’t bother me that they think this because it doesn’t conflict with my view that I possess certain rights simply by virtue of being born. This doesn’t mean that other folks won’t violate those rights. If I’m murdered by someone, that doesn’t mean I didn’t have the right to life.

The reality is that “rights” and “ownership” are essentially others recognizing the possession of the object or the aforementioned “right”. We’re simply used to operating under the social contract(s) that takes this for granted.

I should see if I can find a certain essay. Relates to a computer game where you designed a race and then expanded across the generated galaxy from star system to star system. With other races competing with you. A long-time player had an interesting essay discussing exactly what defined “ownership” and “territory” in the scope of the game. It boiled down to inherent recognition by others that attempting to take it from you was not worth the cost of doing so at that time.

When there is not an arbitrary third party power playing referee/judge the relationships between parties boils down to these sort of implicit contracts. What is the cost of getting/taking something compared to my general interests? Do I benefit from making an explicit contract recognizing the status quo possession? And at a later point do I consider ending that contract, and by what means do I end said agreement?

150 zora  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 11:58:11am

re: #144 calochortus

which is why they dehumanized slaves.

151 Killgore Trout  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 11:58:22am

re: #121 albusteve

You were curious about the Black Panther case….
Despite Bush DOJ declining to charge Minutemen, Pajamas Media suggests double standard on Adams allegations


Fox hypes GOP activist’s “explosive new allegations” against Obama DOJ

It bogus. Instapundit, PJM, Fox and Roger Simon are still bleating about it but it’s more dishonest and easily debunked garbage.

152 goddamnedfrank  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 11:58:22am

re: #131 acacia

I disagree with the Scalia reference. He doesn’t say that there is no fundamental interest in privacy. What he says is that there is no fundamental interest in same sex sodomy.

Do me a favor, and read the dissent before posting, because you’re (deliberately?) confusing the terms “government interest” with private rights:

But that case expressly disclaimed any reliance on the doctrine of “substantive due process,” and grounded the so-called “right to privacy” in penumbras of constitutional provisions other than the Due Process Clause. Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972), likewise had nothing to do with “substantive due process”; it invalidated a Massachusetts law prohibiting the distribution of contraceptives to unmarried persons solely on the basis of the Equal Protection Clause. Of course Eisenstadt contains well known dictum relating to the “right to privacy,” but this referred to the right recognized in Griswold–a right penumbral to the specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights, and not a “substantive due process” right.

153 calochortus  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 11:58:43am

re: #143 Rightwingconspirator

I know you’re probably off to work, but while many founding fathers were uncomfortable with slavery, I have yet to hear that many of them considered blacks as equals. I’m sure there were some, but that just wasn’t the thought of the times.

154 darthstar  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 12:01:46pm

Howdy folks…drive by posting here…just finished packing up and about to head out and pick up the missus for a weekend in Tahoe (My mom’s b-day is July 4th)…so a couple nights at Harrah’s, and a couple nights with friends coming up to stay with us (rented a house on the lake for that, as my sister’s house is pretty full already). Should be some good times.

Everyone try to stay safe, and I’ll log in when I’m able.

155 gamark  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 12:01:56pm

re: #135 calochortus

The view that we only have rights that are granted by people is flawed in that it confuses possession with recognition by others. In the case of slavery, slaves have the right to freedom but the persons/society holding them in slavery do not recognize that right. If you believe that rights come from the state, then you must also agree that slaves in the US prior to the Civil War had no right to escape to freedom. I don’t know of anything in the US Constitution that grants us rights. The language seems to prohibit government from violating rights we already possess.

156 acacia  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 12:02:32pm

re: #137 Lidane

If your read the Scalia opinion he reviews what constitutes a right protected the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause by noting that it has to be a right “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.” Sodomy is not one of those rights. As for privacy - we certainly have that right but it is more of a procedural issue. For example we have the right to be secure in our house and possessions because they can’t be inspected except with a warrant. That doesn’t mean that you can commit crimes in the privacy of the home. Killing someone in your house for example isn’t protected activity because it is done in private. On the other hand, police can’t violate your privacy by walking into your house without a warrant for no reason whatsoever and then arrest you because you have a bloody knife in your hand.

157 reloadingisnotahobby  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 12:02:34pm

re: #154 darthstar
Have a great time!!

158 calochortus  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 12:02:39pm

re: #150 zora

Absolutely, but that doesn’t actually make them any less human. People traditionally view the Other as less than human. Since we live in more enlightened times we can admit that women, Africans, and all those other folks are really human and ought to have the same level of rights. Well, some people can…

159 HoosierHoops  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 12:03:26pm

re: #154 darthstar

Howdy folks…drive by posting here…just finished packing up and about to head out and pick up the missus for a weekend in Tahoe (My mom’s b-day is July 4th)…so a couple nights at Harrah’s, and a couple nights with friends coming up to stay with us (rented a house on the lake for that, as my sister’s house is pretty full already). Should be some good times.

Everyone try to stay safe, and I’ll log in when I’m able.

The fish buffet Fridays nights at Harrah’s is to die for…

160 Racer X  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 12:03:43pm

Did Charles change fonts recently or is my eyesight getting better?

161 researchok  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 12:04:24pm

There is no exclusive source of ‘rights’.

Many of the rights we take for granted today may have been codified and propagated by religious ideologies but that by no means makes those ‘rights’ the exclusive property of the religious.

The rights we live by and agree to are a universal acceptance of free will- and that expression is is not limited to believers. There are plenty of rights that do not find their origin in religion (the right to vote, for example). They are no less natural rights they may have been codified or expressed in religious teachings.

Religious doctrine has been a major source of rights as we know them. They are not however, the only or exclusive source of natural rights.

162 MandyManners  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 12:04:37pm

re: #151 Killgore Trout

You got me curious so I Googled and found this.

163 Crimsonfisted  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 12:05:39pm

re: #154 darthstar

Sounds like a GREAT time. Have fun.

Remember to tip your Keno runner!
/says former Reno Keno runner.

164 Linden Arden  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 12:06:03pm

re: #156 acacia

In Lawrence Scalia ruled that police who wrongly entered a home could still arrest someone for sodomy.

165 sattv4u2  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 12:06:13pm

re: #140 allegro

at the time the discussion had come around to the phrase “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”

If I misunderstood the posters intent, I’m sorry, but I don’t beleive I did

166 Fozzie Bear  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 12:06:54pm

re: #122 gamark

I’m trying to wrap my head around your viewpoint. Are you saying that we as living beings, have no rights other than those recognized by some sort of collective agreement amongst ourselves? I think your view conflates possession of rights with recognition of those rights by others.

I’m an atheist and I certainly disagree with folks like Coburn who believe they get certain of their rights from $DEITY. But it doesn’t bother me that they think this because it doesn’t conflict with my view that I possess certain rights simply by virtue of being born. This doesn’t mean that other folks won’t violate those rights. If I’m murdered by someone, that doesn’t mean I didn’t have the right to life.

I’m saying that the concept of rights, in the abstract (i.e., divorced from any particular legal construct) are meaningless. You have free will, and can choose to do whatever you please. In that sense, you have total freedom to do absolutely anything of which you are physically and mentally capable. What consequences arise from the application of that total freedom is the purview of the law.

Any rights which you claim to possess which aren’t enshrined in law are utterly meaningless, as laws aren’t created by anything other than men. As such, it is incumbent upon humanity to apply reason and decide what rights should be legally recognized, and what particular applications of your free will should be punishable by some penalty, as applied by the government. This is the fundamental basis of the concept of the rule of law.

If you were murdered by somebody, then your free will was attenuated by the free will of another. That’s the only actual “natural right” anybody has, in my opinion: The right to do as you can do under the circumstances in which you find yourself. The rest, that’s enshrined by law, and law alone.

I have a problem with the concept of “inalienable” rights, because ALL civil rights are alienable. They can be taken away from you by men, and thus, they are not inalienable. Claiming that something is your right when it is not legal is sort of a pointless exercise. Where the rubber meets tho road is the social contract, not divine providence.

Whether God wills it or not, things here on Earth are exactly as they are, and not different. Man makes it so. There is nothing divine about rights, or laws. We forget this at our peril, as it has been forgotten before, with horrible consequences.

That’s my point. This isn’t a dig at the founders, but rather a philosophical issue. Free will is the only “natural right” we get. The rest are the rules of man.

167 Mad Al-Jaffee  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 12:07:25pm

re: #159 HoosierHoops

The fish buffet Fridays nights at Harrah’s is to die for…

Especially when the fish comes from the Gulf!

*rimshot*

Thank you, I’ll be here all week! Tip your waitress!

168 Killgore Trout  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 12:08:40pm

re: #162 MandyManners

You got me curious so I Googled and found this.

Yeah, it’s not secret stuff. You can read all the depositions, correspondence, rulings, recommendations online (posted by the secretive anti-white DOJ themselves).
There’s nothing unusual about the case or the way it was handled.

169 calochortus  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 12:09:07pm

re: #155 gamark

The view that we only have rights that are granted by people is flawed in that it confuses possession with recognition by others. In the case of slavery, slaves have the right to freedom but the persons/society holding them in slavery do not recognize that right. If you believe that rights come from the state, then you must also agree that slaves in the US prior to the Civil War had no right to escape to freedom. I don’t know of anything in the US Constitution that grants us rights. The language seems to prohibit government from violating rights we already possess.

An excellent point. I was thinking from the legal rather than moral rights standpoint. Slaves ought to have a right to freedom. Why? Well, um, ‘cause I like being free and other people might like it too. Moral rights become very difficult to quantify because there is so much subjectivity. (And in my opinion that argues against the existence of God-or at least a kind one. Why should there be so many shades of gray? )

170 goddamnedfrank  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 12:10:44pm

re: #156 acacia

If your read the Scalia opinion he reviews what constitutes a right protected the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause by noting that it has to be a right “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.” Sodomy is not one of those rights.

Ah, so constructionism is less about the actual Constitution and more about one man’s interpretation of “tradition and history.” Curmudgeon just got done explaining how constructionism means a liberal take on rights and a conservative take on powers, now you come along with the polar opposite argument. Also, here’s Scalia on the 14th ammendment:

Speaking just this February at the Hoover Institution, Scalia argued (approx. 24:20) that the doctrine of “incorporation,” which holds that the Bill of Rights applies to state governments via the Fourteenth Amendment, is a “mistake” and is “probably false.”

He is a weaselly two-faced piece of trash in a robe, not a respectable jurist.

171 Lidane  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 12:10:46pm

re: #156 acacia

Except that sodomy isn’t a crime, unless you’re suggesting that straight married couples everywhere are criminals every time they have anal sex or the husband gets a blow job.

Also, Linden is correct— Scalia’s ruling was that even if the police wrongly entered your house, you could still be arrested for having sex in your home. That’s wrong. Scalia was wrong, and Lawrence v. Texas was the correct decision.

172 acacia  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 12:10:46pm

re: #152 goddamnedfrank

Scalia makes my point by noting that a “right to privacy” case law is not correct and cannot be used to invalidate a law prohibiting sodomy. He doesn’t state that the Constitution does not protect privacy in important respect. In fact, if you go back and read the “penumbra” cases, one of the prongs is the Fourth Amendment which does specifically protect privacy - and Scalia certainly would uphold Fourth Amendment rights. Again, Scalia, correctly in my view, notes that just because something is done in private doesn’t mean that it automatically becomes a “right to privacy” and that it can’t be unlawful.

173 researchok  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 12:11:45pm

re: #151 Killgore Trout

You were curious about the Black Panther case…
Despite Bush DOJ declining to charge Minutemen, Pajamas Media suggests double standard on Adams allegations

Fox hypes GOP activist’s “explosive new allegations” against Obama DOJ

It bogus. Instapundit, PJM, Fox and Roger Simon are still bleating about it but it’s more dishonest and easily debunked garbage.

Did you see the Bartle Bull interviews? He seemed pretty credible and his creds are impressive.

Adams may have some kind of agenda but it’s hard to tar Bull.

174 acacia  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 12:12:07pm

re: #164 Linden Arden

If he is trying to uphold a warrantless search then in that respect he is wrong.

175 MandyManners  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 12:12:30pm

re: #168 Killgore Trout

Yeah, it’s not secret stuff. You can read all the depositions, correspondence, rulings, recommendations online (posted by the secretive anti-white DOJ themselves).
There’s nothing unusual about the case or the way it was handled.

The commission seemed exasperated in its letter to Holder.

176 Political Atheist  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 12:12:39pm

re: #153 calochortus

One step at a time. It’s important to remember these things we take as self apparent are really contemporary attitudes. Modernity brought superior understanding. The Hammurabi Code, famous ancient law book, has laws about how to enable slavery.

177 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 12:15:43pm

re: #167 Mad Al-Jaffee

Now! In natural oils!

178 calochortus  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 12:17:14pm

re: #176 Rightwingconspirator

Indeed, and New Testament tells us that slaves should be particularly obedient to Christian masters. Let’s hope that the arc of history continues generally upward.

Well, must run. There is a grocery store in my future if we expect to have dinner tonight. Sadly, that also requires making a list and actually planning what we’ll be eating for the next few days.

179 acacia  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 12:17:31pm

re: #171 Lidane

I agree with you on the warrantless search issue. As for sodomy not being a crime - it obvioulsy was - that was what the case is all about. As for Lawrence, I actually agree that it was rightly decided but not on “right to privacy” or substantive due process grounds but on equal protection grounds. It obviously was designed to discriminate against gays and dsicriminating on the basis of sexual orientation in my mind violates the Equal Protection Clause.

180 Killgore Trout  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 12:17:59pm

re: #173 researchok

Did you see the Bartle Bull interviews? He seemed pretty credible and his creds are impressive.

Adams may have some kind of agenda but it’s hard to tar Bull.

No, I’ve never heard of him. Was he a witness on the scene? There’s not much dispute about what they were doing but these cases can be difficult legally. It’s like voter fraud. Actual convictions are fairly rare. The cases usually end up being settled with an injunction like with the Black Panther Case. There is absolutely no evidence that the DOJ is anti-white. It’s a bogus claim from wingnuts to stoke racial tensions and create fear of our first black President.

181 Political Atheist  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 12:19:05pm

re: #171 Lidane

For those who want an example of the court denying rights if obvious violation of the constitution-Check this out

“Military areas” my butt. How many German and Italian Americans got interned? None.

182 Killgore Trout  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 12:19:51pm

re: #175 MandyManners

If you check the Media Matters link they sent them over a 1,000 pages of documents they requested. Nothing is being hidden.

183 KingKenrod  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 12:21:58pm

re: #168 Killgore Trout

Yeah, it’s not secret stuff. You can read all the depositions, correspondence, rulings, recommendations online (posted by the secretive anti-white DOJ themselves).
There’s nothing unusual about the case or the way it was handled.

The case seems like slam-dunk voter intimidation to me. What do you think?

184 darthstar  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 12:22:04pm

Thanks for the well wishes, everyone.

1. I always tip the keno runner, Crimson…when I win :)
2. Friday’s Station is one of our favorite restaurants, Hoops…we don’t do the buffet thing, though the El Dorado in Reno used to have a seafood buffet that was pretty spectacular.

Cheers, and with this, I’m on the road.

185 Political Atheist  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 12:22:13pm

re: #112 calochortus

If one spouse so much as leaves a red mark in a physical act, they will be arrested and bail starts at $50,000. California is strict since OJ

186 Killgore Trout  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 12:22:41pm

re: #175 MandyManners

It’s also a frequent tactic for “human rights” groups to demand government officials appear before them for questioning. Like Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rove. The requests are almost always declined.

187 KingKenrod  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 12:23:49pm

re: #183 KingKenrod

The case seems like slam-dunk voter intimidation to me. What do you think?

Never mind, I read your #180. Thanks.

188 freetoken  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 12:23:51pm

re: #89 acacia

… with the principles in the greatest political document ever written - the Declaration of Independence.

The DoI is a laundry list of complaints by a group of men who wanted to break their covenant with those who ruled over them (and had partially funded the establishment of the society in which they lived), to justify what they were about to do, in part to raise support among their fellow colonists. It is among this list of grievances in which we find the notoriously bigoted:

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

So no, I do not agree. The DoI is not the “greatest political” document ever written. It was a partially effective rallying document for a cause.

189 sattv4u2  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 12:24:01pm

re: #183 KingKenrod

The case seems like slam-dunk voter intimidation to me. What do you think?

Nothing to see here. Move along!
/

190 acacia  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 12:24:27pm

re: #170 goddamnedfrank

He may have said that at a speech but he certainly applied it in the McDonald case on the Second Amendment. At the beginning of his concurring opinion he noted that he did not agree with the way the case law had come down using due process clause rather than the privileges or immunities clause for incorporation but he found it so deeply entrenched that he feels bound to apply it - and he did. Thomas, rightly in my opinion, relied on the privileges and immunities clause essentially stating that the Fourteenth Amendment was specifically designed to make all of the first eight amendments applicable to the states.

191 Killgore Trout  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 12:25:33pm

re: #183 KingKenrod

The case seems like slam-dunk voter intimidation to me. What do you think?


The Minutemen case seemed like a slam dunk too. I’m not a lawyer but these cases are can be difficult to prosecute and it rarely happens. That’s life. Why aren’t the Wingnuts equally outraged about the Minutemen intimidating hispanic voters? Because they aren’t really interested in fair voting practices. They just want white people to fear the black man in the White House. It’s very simple.

192 acacia  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 12:25:56pm

re: #188 freetoken

Name a better one.

193 webevintage  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 12:26:58pm

re: #168 Killgore Trout

Yeah, it’s not secret stuff. You can read all the depositions, correspondence, rulings, recommendations online (posted by the secretive anti-white DOJ themselves).
There’s nothing unusual about the case or the way it was handled.

This first comment at MM has me confused:
“The main “allegation” appears to be the “decision not to pursue serious charges against members of the New Black Panther Party.” What this ignores (and what many are unaware of) is that the case has always been a civil matter since instituted by the Bush Justice Department in its waning days. As such, the maximum penalty (injunction) was sought and obtained against the NBPP guy with the nightstick. {Though the max penalty this has been pooh-pooed by conservatives}
In addition to purveying heresay, this Adams fellow does not seem to offer anything more specific than “serious charges.” Why does he not state, with specificity, what “serious charges” were, or could have been, brought by the Bush Justice Department in this civil matter? “

So the Bush DOJ decided how to persue this case but the Holder DOJ are the ones being blamed for the out come?

194 sattv4u2  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 12:26:58pm

re: #191 Killgore Trout

The Minutemen case seemed like a slam dunk too. I’m not a lawyer but these cases are can be difficult to prosecute and it rarely happens. That’s life. Why aren’t the Wingnuts equally outraged about the Minutemen intimidating hispanic voters? Because they aren’t really interested in fair voting practices. They just want white people to fear the black man in the White House. It’s very simple.

That all may be true, but it didn’t answer the question

195 researchok  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 12:28:13pm

re: #180 Killgore Trout

No, I’ve never heard of him. Was he a witness on the scene? There’s not much dispute about what they were doing but these cases can be difficult legally. It’s like voter fraud. Actual convictions are fairly rare. The cases usually end up being settled with an injunction like with the Black Panther Case. There is absolutely no evidence that the DOJ is anti-white. It’s a bogus claim from wingnuts to stoke racial tensions and create fear of our first black President.

To suggest he DOJ is anti white is absurd in the extreme. Period.

The idea Holder might might have his own agenda is not original. Every AG brings an agenda to the DOJ, one that reflects the concerns of the administration (think Bush and Patriot Act, etc).

Bartle Bull is a big time civil rights lawyer. He was close to every Dem administration since Carter. His creds are impeccable (and he seems to be4 a good guy, non political type).

Anyway, it turns out the giy was there in Philly and saw what happened with his own eyes. Long story short, Bull is sticking to his guns.

The main problem I see here is that PJM were the first to come out with the story. That said, it isn’t as if Adams and Bull are a part if PJM and the MM guys have avoided bringing up Bull’s name and involvement altogether.

196 Fozzie Bear  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 12:28:54pm

re: #194 sattv4u2

That all may be true, but it didn’t answer the question

The answer is and was that these kinds of cases are harder to win than they may seem, and often cases of this sort end with injunctions rather than prosecutions.

197 Lidane  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 12:30:01pm

re: #179 acacia

As for sodomy not being a crime - it obvioulsy was - that was what the case is all about.

That case was about striking down an unfair law that targeted gays. The law here in Texas did indeed violate the equal protection clause, since it specifically criminalized behavior among gays (specifically, oral and anal sex) that was entirely legal for straight people.

The government shouldn’t have a single interest in the sex lives of its citizens, except in codifying consent. As long as everyone involved is over the legal age, isn’t related, is of the same species, and is there of their own free will, then they absolutely have a right to whatever the hell they want to do in the privacy of their own home. That’s the point. It’s not the government’s job to tell me who I can take to my bed and who I can’t, as long as I’m with another adult who wants to be with me.

198 freetoken  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 12:30:06pm

re: #192 acacia

Name a better one.

That’s easy - the US Constitution.

Indeed, that period of history is a turning point in the West, and the late 18th century started to see the beginning of the end of colonialism in the Americas.

I think you are conflating the importance of the time and some individuals involved, with the actual DoI.

199 Eclectic Infidel  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 12:31:07pm

re: #14 The Curmudgeon

I don’t understand the hostility to the idea of natural rights. The Founders believed that they existed. The Ninth Amendment says:

What’s that all about if there aren’t any rights except those specified in the Constitution?

I don’t think it’s so much hostility to the idea, but equating natural rights - whatever those are, with that of “God given right” is a [pardon the cliche] a slippery slope, because then it must be defined “who’s god” are we talking about? And to which religion does this god come from? And who gets to interpret these natural “divine” rights once said rights have been defined. It’s murky.

200 RadicalModerate  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 12:31:41pm

As many are aware from the discussion downstairs, Senate Republicans again blocked unemployment extensions last night, and John Cornyn is blaming Democrats for it even though just two Republicans voted for the extension, and only one Democrat voted against.

Cornyn blames Democrats for failure to extend unemployment benefits

The Senate’s failure Wednesday ensures that more than 2 million people will lose their jobless aid before Congress returns from its week-long recess, according to the Washington Post. The Labor Department estimates that more than 1.2 million people already have been affected.

Also, the House of Representatives just passed an extension of unemployment benefits, 270-153. The Senate will not reconsider the bill until their return from recess July 12.

201 gamark  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 12:31:48pm

re: #166 Fozzie Bear

How you view “rights” really is an abstract philosophical concept. But I could make the argument that “rights” which only exist in codified law are meaningless as well. Using a slavery example again, there existed in the US free states and slave states. In your view, a black person in a free state had the right to freedom, but if he walked across the wrong state boundary, he no longer had his right to freedom. I would say this sort of right is meaningless. It is a permission, not a right.

202 Fozzie Bear  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 12:32:23pm

re: #198 freetoken

That’s easy - the US Constitution.

Indeed, that period of history is a turning point in the West, and the late 18th century started to see the beginning of the end of colonialism in the Americas.

I think you are conflating the importance of the time and some individuals involved, with the actual DoI.

People seem to forget the utter failure of a social contract that preceded the Constitution: The Articles of Confederation.

203 Lidane  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 12:33:13pm

re: #200 RadicalModerate

So in other words, Cornyn is being a tool as always.

God, it irks me that he’s one of my Senators. He’s insufferable.

204 Killgore Trout  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 12:34:03pm

re: #193 webevintage

So the Bush DOJ decided how to persue this case but the Holder DOJ are the ones being blamed for the out come?


Yeah, more or less.

205 sattv4u2  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 12:34:54pm

re: #200 RadicalModerate

The repubs presented a plan to pay for it with (as of yet) unused stimulus funds rather than pass it unfunded

206 Areozol  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 12:35:02pm

From a perspective of someone outside the US of A this guy is obviously trying to say that religious believes should be the law in the USA.

It’s nothing wrong with deriving morality from religion, but AFAIK USA had been found on principles of separation of the church and state.

207 Political Atheist  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 12:35:12pm

re: #199 eclectic infidel

I don’t think it’s so much hostility to the idea, but equating natural rights - whatever those are, with that of “God given right” is a [pardon the cliche] a slippery slope, because then it must be defined “who’s god” are we talking about? And to which religion does this god come from? And who gets to interpret these natural “divine” rights once said rights have been defined. It’s murky.

Exactly. If you just see “natural” or God Given” to mean larger or more permanent than our regular laws you set all the BS aside. Even atheists acknowledge principles larger than laws. Principles that govern our laws we hope.
It’s “God” in the large generic sense, not specific.

208 Killgore Trout  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 12:35:22pm

re: #194 sattv4u2

That all may be true, but it didn’t answer the question

You can read through all the legal documents Mandy linked to. The legal reasoning is probably in there.

209 Fozzie Bear  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 12:36:00pm

re: #201 gamark

How you view “rights” really is an abstract philosophical concept. But I could make the argument that “rights” which only exist in codified law are meaningless as well. Using a slavery example again, there existed in the US free states and slave states. In your view, a black person in a free state had the right to freedom, but if he walked across the wrong state boundary, he no longer had his right to freedom. I would say this sort of right is meaningless. It is a permission, not a right.

Governments don’t, and can’t, deal in actual rights. They deal in laws. That’s my point. A black man before emancipation had the same natural rights a black man does now. He had free will. Everything else is enshrined in law. There’s nothing sacred, special, or inalienable about it. As such, it is incredibly easily fucked up. A black man’s right to not be property was effectively just a fantasy prior to emancipation. The LAW is what gave him that legal right, not nature.

210 webevintage  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 12:36:47pm

re: #200 RadicalModerate

The Senate will not reconsider the bill until their return from recess July 12.

How many “vacations” a year do these people get?
Why can’t they come back to work on July 6th?
As it is they really only do anything Tuesday-Thursday….

If I was Reid I’d make them stay until they passed something to extend unemployment benefits. No 4th at home, they can enjoy it in the nation’s capitol.

211 sattv4u2  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 12:37:10pm

re: #206 Areozol

From a perspective of someone outside the US of A this guy is obviously trying to say that religious believes should be the law in the USA.

It’s nothing wrong with deriving morality from religion, but AFAIK USA had been found on principles of separation of the church and state.

which is not stated in any official state document
NOW,, if you are talking about The Establishment Clause, please remember that there are two distinct parts to that

212 sattv4u2  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 12:39:27pm

and on that note,,, nap time

(this temporary overnight shift is going to be the death of me,, my body clock os ALL screwed up)

213 Ericus58  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 12:39:29pm

re: #168 Killgore Trout

Yeah, it’s not secret stuff. You can read all the depositions, correspondence, rulings, recommendations online (posted by the secretive anti-white DOJ themselves).
There’s nothing unusual about the case or the way it was handled.

What are your thought’s on these Correspondences:

[Link: www.usccr.gov…]
Chairman’s letter to AG Holder re unfulfilled discovery requests May 9, 2010

[Link: www.usccr.gov…]
Letter to DOJ on need to provide discovery relating to New Black Panther Party litigation, March 30, 2010

214 acacia  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 12:40:24pm

re: #198 freetoken

Maybe. I still say though that the Constitution is founded on the principles laid out in the Declaration the main one being that all rights rest with the people and they cannot be governed absent their consent. I don’t think the Constitution would be possible without the country’s agreement on those basic points which, in my opinion, have not been expressed more eloquently than in the Declaration. Interestingly, the Bill of Rights was thought to have been unnecessary since they thought everyone would automatically recognize these principles. Unfortunately, like any great idea, its practice often falls short - thus the need for the Bill of Rights.

215 allegro  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 12:40:31pm

re: #210 webevintage

If I was Reid I’d make them stay until they passed something to extend unemployment benefits. No 4th at home, they can enjoy it in the nation’s capitol.

If I was in Reid’s position, I’d make the Repubs actually filibuster, stand there and spew for hours on end, for days if they wanted to, rather than just threaten. This is why, and only why, every vote now requires 60 to pass. It’s ridiculous.

216 Killgore Trout  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 12:42:15pm

re: #194 sattv4u2

Here you go….
DOJ comments 5-13-09 re proposed default judgment

I don’t expect this to quell the outrageous outrage but there it is and you can read it yourself instead of listening to Fox News and dishonest bloggers.

217 Lidane  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 12:42:18pm

re: #211 sattv4u2

The separation of church and state was clearly Jefferson’s intent. He said so himself:

“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between church and State.”

—Letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT. (1 January 1802)

218 zora  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 12:42:27pm

re: #215 allegro

i agree. the dems keep saying what they can’t do because of a possible filibuster. seems lazy to me. and a little cowardly.

219 acacia  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 12:43:08pm

re: #197 Lidane

I agree with you - see 171.

220 Areozol  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 12:43:15pm

re: #211 sattv4u2

which is not stated in any official state document
NOW,, if you are talking about The Establishment Clause, please remember that there are two distinct parts to that

OK, I get it.

The establishment clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference of one religion over another. The first approach is called the “separation” or “no aid” interpretation, while the second approach is called the “non-preferential” or “accommodation” interpretation. The accommodation interpretation prohibits Congress from preferring one religion over another, but does not prohibit the government’s entry into religious domain to make accommodations in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause.

[Link: en.wikipedia.org…]

221 Feline Fearless Leader  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 12:43:50pm

re: #218 zora

i agree. the dems keep saying what they can’t do because of a possible filibuster. seems lazy to me. and a little cowardly.

Yep. We want to see Jimmy Stewart up there stammering his way through a principled declaration of what democracy stands for while the mail in his support builds up… ;)

222 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 12:44:22pm

The boyfriend’s health has “stabilized” (for lack of a better word). While he hasn’t shown new improvements, he does not appear to be getting worse.

Daughter appears to be in good spirits though. Sent us a text picture of the boyfriend; she has him in a sombrero.

You can tell from the look on his face in the picture, that his words leading up to the shot were, “Take that hat off of me! Ah crap! Don’t take my picture! Geeze! Don’t text that out!”

She is having fun at his expense.

Chip off the old block.

223 sattv4u2  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 12:44:41pm

re: #216 Killgore Trout

Here you go…
DOJ comments 5-13-09 re proposed default judgment

I don’t expect this to quell the outrageous outrage but there it is and you can read it yourself instead of listening to Fox News and dishonest bloggers.

HAHAHA,,, bad assumptions on your part

Strike one and two!

224 wrenchwench  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 12:45:05pm

That’s odd. Suddenly,

Sorry, “twitter.com” does not exist or could not be found

Hmm…

225 abolitionist  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 12:45:15pm

re: #211 sattv4u2

which is not stated in any official state document
NOW,, if you are talking about The Establishment Clause, please remember that there are two distinct parts to that

Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom

The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom was drafted in 1777[1] by Thomas Jefferson in the city of Fredericksburg, Virginia. In 1786, the Virginia General Assembly enacted the statute into the state’s law. The Statute for Religious Freedom is one of only three accomplishments Jefferson instructed be put in his epitaph.[2] it supported separation of church and state, and freedom of conscience.
226 RadicalModerate  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 12:45:46pm

re: #215 allegro

If I was in Reid’s position, I’d make the Repubs actually filibuster, stand there and spew for hours on end, for days if they wanted to, rather than just threaten. This is why, and only why, every vote now requires 60 to pass. It’s ridiculous.

Just a few years ago, when Republicans held a razor-thin majority in the Senate, they proposed a “nuclear option” when Democrats threatened a filibuster, and were gung-ho for a straight up-down vote on procedures. If the Democrats proposed anything even *close* to this, Republicans would be claiming that it would be the end of democracy.

227 Eclectic Infidel  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 12:46:07pm

re: #207 Rightwingconspirator

Exactly. If you just see “natural” or God Given” to mean larger or more permanent than our regular laws you set all the BS aside. Even atheists acknowledge principles larger than laws. Principles that govern our laws we hope.
It’s “God” in the large generic sense, not specific.

I am an atheist and I agree that our laws are based on principles concerned with ideas like: freedom of movement and thought; personal and collective self-defense; personal and collective well-being, etc. The use of God, IMO, is simply an appeal to an absolute authority regarding these principles. Of course, ultimately, the laws that govern us come from authority we (the royal we) have put in power.

What will always bother me with the notion of “natural laws” is that there are those with extremist religious leanings who want to define such laws for everyone else. I just can’t abide by that, especially since I know perfectly well what a theocratic-minded evangelical person means when he/she conflates natural rights with “God given rights.”

228 sattv4u2  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 12:46:15pm

re: #217 Lidane

The separation of church and state was clearly Jefferson’s intent. He said so himself:

that he did

But again, that phrase appears nowehere in (as I stated) OFFICIAL US DOCUMENTS

229 Vicious Babushka  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 12:46:16pm

Greetings, honcos.

The Wee Toesies of Zion is here with her entourage. So I am kept busy rubbing, kissing and tickling the Wee Toesies so that the young Overlord attached to them will be soothed.

230 MandyManners  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 12:48:02pm

re: #182 Killgore Trout

If you check the Media Matters link they sent them over a 1,000 pages of documents they requested. Nothing is being hidden.

I’m just going on what the commission itself has to say.

231 sattv4u2  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 12:48:52pm

re: #225 abolitionist

When I wrote “state” it was in obvious reference to USA docs, not individual states
The discussion revolved around the Constitution and the DoI, and the posters question
but AFAIK USA had been found on principles of separation of the church and state.

#206

232 Lidane  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 12:49:09pm

re: #228 sattv4u2

that he did

But again, that phrase appears nowehere in (as I stated) OFFICIAL US DOCUMENTS

Except that he’s talking about the First Amendment, which, last I checked, IS an official U.S. document. The guy who wrote the damned thing is explaining exactly what he meant by it— that it created a separation of church and state. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

233 wrenchwench  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 12:49:55pm

re: #224 wrenchwench

That’s odd. Suddenly,

Hmm…

It’s back.

234 sattv4u2  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 12:50:32pm

re: #232 Lidane

Except that he’s talking about the First Amendment, which, last I checked, IS an official U.S. document. The guy who wrote the damned thing is explaining exactly what he meant by it— that it created a separation of church and state. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

Does the phrase “seperation of church and state” appear there? no!

235 Eclectic Infidel  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 12:51:15pm

re: #232 Lidane

Except that he’s talking about the First Amendment, which, last I checked, IS an official U.S. document. The guy who wrote the damned thing is explaining exactly what he meant by it— that it created a separation of church and state. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

Another way to look at this is the never-ending argument about what the Founders intended. That quote illustrates quite clearly what was meant regarding secular vs. religious governance.

236 sattv4u2  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 12:51:25pm

and (again) on that note

nap time

BBL (much) later

237 Fozzie Bear  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 12:51:50pm

re: #228 sattv4u2

that he did

But again, that phrase appears nowehere in (as I stated) OFFICIAL US DOCUMENTS

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”

That sure as hell looks like “separation of church and state” to me. Jefferson later explained that that is exactly what it means. How much clearer could it be?

238 acacia  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 12:52:26pm

re: #232 Lidane

I don’t understand people who insist on pointing out that the words “separation of church and state” are not in the Constitution. Obviously they are not but just as obviously, the words that are there clearly establish such a separation. This is an argument about semantics and doesn’t even address the specific issues that it may apply to like invocations at Congress or school graduations etc.

239 sattv4u2  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 12:53:11pm

re: #237 Fozzie Bear

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”

That sure as hell looks like “separation of church and state” to me. Jefferson later explained that that is exactly what it means. How much clearer could it be?

That is EXACTLY what I posted. The Establishment Clause IS in there, the phrase “seperation of church and state” is not

How much clearer could THAT be !?!?

240 Varek Raith  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 12:53:16pm

re: #234 sattv4u2

Does the phrase “seperation of church and state” appear there? no!

What’s a “well regulated militia”?
;)

241 acacia  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 12:54:08pm

re: #240 Varek Raith

The opposite of a poorly regulated militia.

242 Fozzie Bear  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 12:54:19pm

re: #239 sattv4u2

That is EXACTLY what I posted. The Establishment Clause IS in there, the phrase “seperation of church and state” is not

How much clearer could THAT be !?!?

Why are you belaboring the point, if you agree that Jefferson wasn’t misinterpreting his own words? It means the same thing.

243 wrenchwench  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 12:54:38pm

re: #229 Alouette

Greetings, honcos.

The Wee Toesies of Zion is here with her entourage. So I am kept busy rubbing, kissing and tickling the Wee Toesies so that the young Overlord attached to them will be soothed.

I once had a tiny pink bicycle in the shop for repairs. It was completely pink, including the tires and pedals, and it was called “The Little Overlord”. I wanted to keep it, but so did the customer.

244 MandyManners  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 12:55:03pm

re: #191 Killgore Trout

The Minutemen case seemed like a slam dunk too. I’m not a lawyer but these cases are can be difficult to prosecute and it rarely happens. That’s life. Why aren’t the Wingnuts equally outraged about the Minutemen intimidating hispanic voters? Because they aren’t really interested in fair voting practices. They just want white people to fear the black man in the White House. It’s very simple.

Did any of the minutemen have a nightclub?

245 jpkoch  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 12:55:26pm

Kagan could have answered the question in ways that would pacify both sides. Here it goes:

“

While I do not believe in the Natural Law theory, I do believe in the over-all results of thier thinking. This thinking is what the authors of Declaration of Independence intended to focus on. And I might add, there is strong evidence that a sizeable minority of these authors were either agnostic or atheists.

“The authors wanted to convey the fact that humans do not derive thier rights from any government. Governments may guarentee rights, but governments do not convey rights. And the rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness should not be seen as only a Jewish or Christian construct, but as something all people should agree on. One should not even have to be religious to think this way. After all, what are Human Rights?

“

246 RadicalModerate  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 12:55:52pm

FYI:

Day four of the Elena Kagan confirmation starts in about five minutes - today is pro/con testimony from advocates on both sides.

247 Killgore Trout  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 12:56:20pm

re: #244 MandyManners

Did any of the minutemen have a nightclub?

No. they had guns.

248 The Curmudgeon  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 12:56:54pm

re: #234 sattv4u2

Does the phrase “seperation of church and state” appear there? no!

Does “checks and balances” appear there? How about “limited government”? No!!!!!!!!!

So what? Madison wrote the First Amendment, and he liked Jefferson’s phrase so well he used it himself in correspondence.

249 Crimsonfisted  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 12:57:15pm

re: #239 sattv4u2

That is EXACTLY what I posted. The Establishment Clause IS in there, the phrase “seperation of church and state” is not

How much clearer could THAT be !?!?

I understood that the government was not to interfere with the church or churches (or lack thereof) business, and not necessarily the other way ‘round? Isn’t that what the Establishment Clause covers as well? Christians or Jews or what have you are in the Senate, but Senators do not run churches as an arm of the US government? Am I mistaken? Does that sound right?

250 wrenchwench  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 12:57:19pm

re: #244 MandyManners

Did any of the minutemen have a nightclub?

They tend to hang out in cowboy bars.

/nightstick, maybe…

251 gamark  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 12:57:36pm

re: #209 Fozzie Bear

Governments don’t, and can’t, deal in actual rights. They deal in laws.

I agree with that. I also believe that one of the general purposes of law is to protect rights that we possess before the law is written. This is why I have such great respect for people who stage acts of civil non-violent protest such as Ghandi and MLK. They intentionally break the law, knowing they will be arrested. They do this to draw attention to the fact that the law is wrong to deny them certain rights that they morally possess. I’m discussing concepts while you are discussing implementation details. I don’t believe you are necessarily wrong in your viewpoint, just that I have a hard time reconciling it with my viewpoint.

252 Eclectic Infidel  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 12:58:01pm

re: #240 Varek Raith

What’s a “well regulated militia”?
;)

At the very least, any and all firearms should be registered. I mean, if you’re going to regulate, you can’t have unregistered automatic weapons that are unaccounted for, especially nowadays.

253 celticdragon  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 12:58:31pm

re: #14 The Curmudgeon

I don’t understand the hostility to the idea of natural rights. The Founders believed that they existed. The Ninth Amendment says:

What’s that all about if there aren’t any rights except those specified in the Constitution?

The driving principle for justifying the lawfulness of our Revolution was the idea that rights are derived from Nature or Divine Providence and not the King. If our rights come from the King or the Crown, then the Crown may also take them away. Rights bestowed by nature or Providence may not be taken away by the Crown, and therefore the Crown broke the contract binding the subjects to him (King George) when those rights were abrogated. This is amply justified in Hobbes’ Leviathan as well as the writings of Locke.

I am a firm believer in the notion of Natural Rights.

That being said, I don’t think Grassly was getting at this at all.

254 lawhawk  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 1:00:10pm

Since we’re talking con law and history, how about a wee bit of background, including how the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution, and the Federalist and Antifederalist papers relate to each other timewise:

[Link: www.constitution.org…]

Note too that the Bill of Rights was an add on to the Constitution, and it was only after the Bill of Rights were introduced that North Carolina ratified (previously rejecting the Constitution as originally written).

255 freetoken  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 1:00:23pm

re: #238 acacia

I don’t understand people who insist on pointing out that the words “separation of church and state” are not in the Constitution.


Because they are literalists, which is why they believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis, because Genesis 1 says “day”, which therefore means our 24 hour day.

256 celticdragon  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 1:01:06pm

re: #240 Varek Raith

What’s a “well regulated militia”?
;)

§ 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

257 lawhawk  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 1:02:43pm

re: #256 celticdragon

That only tells you the current version of the law - not the statutory history (as in when it was amended and nature of the amendments).

258 Feline Fearless Leader  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 1:03:12pm

re: #240 Varek Raith

What’s a “well regulated militia”?
;)

One that takes plenty of roughage in with its diet of course…

/

259 celticdragon  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 1:03:31pm

re: #252 eclectic infidel

At the very least, any and all firearms should be registered. I mean, if you’re going to regulate, you can’t have unregistered automatic weapons that are unaccounted for, especially nowadays.

There is no demonstrable connection between registration and crime control. Registration merely hands regulators a list of guns to confiscate later.

260 allegro  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 1:03:58pm

re: #251 gamark

This is why I have such great respect for people who stage acts of civil non-violent protest such as Ghandi and MLK. They intentionally break the law, knowing they will be arrested. They do this to draw attention to the fact that the law is wrong to deny them certain rights that they morally possess.

Interesting the you bring this up. I just got through reading this:

Dan Choi and James Pietrangelo subpeona the President: ‘we were following your orders’

The gay soldiers arrested outside the White House protesting “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” will annouce today that they’re demanding that President Obama testify in their trial on minor civil disobedience charges.
Their novel argument: Obama himself called on gay rights advocates to pressure him, so they were just following orders.

261 Eclectic Infidel  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 1:06:27pm

re: #259 celticdragon

There is no demonstrable connection between registration and crime control. Registration merely hands regulators a list of guns to confiscate later.

Well I think it’s important, especially with people who have been convicted of violent crimes. I don’t think felons who have a violent criminal history should be permitted to possess/own firearms and registration is a good way to regulate this.

262 CuriousLurker  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 1:06:42pm

I’ve read through this whole thread and I still don’t understand what “natural rights” are supposed to be and, assuming they exist, who/what defines them.

Are they a group of empirical facts? Are they an agreed upon concept based on one or more philosophies? Are they God-given rights? Trying to fit them into any of those three categories just raises more questions and makes my head hurt.

I’m totally lost. *sigh*

263 celticdragon  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 1:07:06pm

re: #257 lawhawk

That only tells you the current version of the law - not the statutory history (as in when it was amended and nature of the amendments).

It is fairly well known and amply demonstrated in history that the militia was all able bodied men of good character (ages may vary), and militia duty where I am in the Carolinas was actually a means of paying your tax burden for the year during the Colonial period.

I do living history interpretation as a member of the Guilford Militia circa 1770 to 1781

264 tradewind  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 1:08:03pm

re: #230 MandyManners
Some stuff she wrote during the Clinton years is not being released, cited as EP./
As if it would make a difference. Wave her through already and get back to the country’s business. These hearings have devolved from inquiries into a nominee’s fitness into Senate karaoke.

265 tradewind  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 1:08:44pm

re: #259 celticdragon
But…. but, don’t you think the government needs to know which gangs have what automatic weapons? //

266 Crimsonfisted  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 1:09:04pm

re: #255 freetoken

Because they are literalists, which is why they believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis, because Genesis 1 says “day”, which therefore means our 24 hour day.

Not me. I don’t have a literal transalation of Genesis. The creation story is a story of love like John 3:16. For so God loved us, he gave us THE WORLD. End of creation story.

267 Lidane  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 1:09:27pm

re: #234 sattv4u2

Does the phrase “seperation of church and state” appear there? no!

Not the point. The Constitution doesn’t explicitly mention a lot of things — the Internet, television, the electric chair, etc. — yet SCOTUS has been able to look at the words that ARE written and interpret them accordingly in order to deal with those things as they’ve arisen.

In this case, we have the guy who wrote the damned thing telling us outright that the Establishment Clause creates a separation of church and state. He says it, shows that it was the intent, and that’s pretty much the end of it. Whether or not it’s explicitly said is irrelevant. His meaning was clear.

268 celticdragon  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 1:10:13pm

re: #262 CuriousLurker

I’ve read through this whole thread and I still don’t understand what “natural rights” are supposed to be and, assuming they exist, who/what defines them.

Are they a group of empirical facts? Are they an agreed upon concept based on one or more philosophies? Are they God-given rights? Trying to fit them into any of those three categories just raises more questions and makes my head hurt.

I’m totally lost. *sigh*

I attempted to answer that a little bit here.

269 albusteve  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 1:10:31pm

re: #252 eclectic infidel

At the very least, any and all firearms should be registered. I mean, if you’re going to regulate, you can’t have unregistered automatic weapons that are unaccounted for, especially nowadays.

possession of unregistered automatic weapons is an extremely serious federal offense…you WILL go to jail

270 tradewind  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 1:11:05pm

re: #262 CuriousLurker
You have to revisit Philosophy 101. Locke , Rousseau, divine rights vs God-given, yadda yadda.

271 Eclectic Infidel  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 1:11:28pm

re: #268 celticdragon

I attempted to answer that a little bit here.

Does a “Natural Right” include the right to own a firearm, regardless of one’s criminal history?

272 celticdragon  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 1:11:44pm

re: #269 albusteve

possession of unregistered automatic weapons is an extremely serious federal offense…you WILL go to jail

Quite.

I think electric is confused about weapons terminology and basic characteristics.

273 Crimsonfisted  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 1:13:28pm

re: #268 celticdragon

I attempted to answer that a little bit here.

Put that comment on a T-shirt, commands the High Priestess!

Very well put.

274 lawhawk  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 1:14:00pm

re: #262 CuriousLurker

Federalist #84 addresses this in some detail:

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretence for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority, which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it, was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights.

On the subject of the liberty of the press, as much has been said, I cannot forbear adding a remark or two: In the first place, I observe that there is not a syllable concerning it in the constitution of this state, and in the next, I contend that whatever has been said about it in that of any other state, amounts to nothing. What signifies a declaration that “the liberty of the press shall be inviolably preserved?” What is the liberty of the press? Who can give it any definition which would not leave the utmost latitude for evasion? I hold it to be impracticable; and from this, I infer, that its security, whatever fine declarations may be inserted in any constitution respecting it, must altogether depend on public opinion, and on the general spirit of the people and of the government.1 And here, after all, as intimated upon another occasion, must we seek for the only solid basis of all our rights.

There remains but one other view of this matter to conclude the point. The truth is, after all the declamation we have heard, that the constitution is itself in every rational sense, and to every useful purpose, A BILL OF RIGHTS.

Not only does Hamilton argue that a bill of rights is unnecessary, but all the rights and limitations on federal government are enshrined already in the Constitution. Indeed, it appears that Hamilton believed that the Constitution was sufficiently limiting on government actions, including restricting the press, etc.,

However, this turned out to be the minority view because the Bill of Rights was necessary for the ratification of the Constitution since sufficient numbers of members wanted enumerated rights - and then left room for additional rights via the 9th and that rights not vested in the federal government or the people were to the states in the 10th.

275 albusteve  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 1:14:12pm

re: #272 celticdragon

Quite.

I think electric is confused about weapons terminology and basic characteristics.

so are others…no problem

276 celticdragon  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 1:14:51pm

re: #271 eclectic infidel

Does a “Natural Right” include the right to own a firearm, regardless of one’s criminal history?

Thomas Hobbes would answer you have a natural right to defend yourself as best as you may. The rights of society to be protected from a person proven to be a poor character must be balanced against the rights of that person.

So, whereas you (almost) never forfeit your right to self defense, you may forfeit some of your choices by which it is accomplished.

277 celticdragon  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 1:15:50pm

re: #273 Crimsonfisted

Put that comment on a T-shirt, commands the High Priestess!

Very well put.

Thank you! :)

279 CuriousLurker  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 1:22:34pm

re: #268 celticdragon

I attempted to answer that a little bit here.

Thanks. I saw that right after I posted. It still seems really problematic to me though, this idea of rights “derived from Nature or Divine Providence”. I thought nature defined laws like gravity, not rights—am I misunderstanding the definition in this context? If it’s Divine Providence, then that opens up a whole other can of worms with regard to separation of church & state, at least in my mind.

281 RadicalModerate  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 1:24:12pm

re: #278 Killgore Trout

Limbaugh: Dismissal of cases against black defendants “the natural course of events” with black AG and president

So, Rush has switched from the dogwhistle to the megaphone?

282 CuriousLurker  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 1:24:16pm

re: #270 tradewind

You have to revisit Philosophy 101. Locke , Rousseau, divine rights vs God-given, yadda yadda.

Thanks, I’ll do that.

283 albusteve  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 1:24:51pm

well, on a lighter note….I saw a bunch of pictures of Kagan at the hearings..she was laughing and incredulous and very expressive making some hilarious faces…I loved those pics…she seems relaxed and easy going and no doubt prepared for the hearings…they can’t get to her and she knows it….she seems to be very likable in spite of all the pseudo intellectual spewage she has to address…I ‘d drink with her any day…vote her in and move on

284 celticdragon  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 1:25:50pm

re: #279 CuriousLurker

Thanks. I saw that right after I posted. It still seems really problematic to me though, this idea of rights “derived from Nature or Divine Providence”. I thought nature defined laws like gravity, not rights—am I misunderstanding the definition in this context? If it’s Divine Providence, then that opens up a whole other can of worms with regard to separation of church & state, at least in my mind.

Well, the alternative is that rights are not inalienable, and the State or Crown bestows them as seen fit. By that metric, there is no legal reason why Nazi Germany could not murder as many people as they liked, since the State decides what rights are.

That way leads to utilitarian madness.

285 webevintage  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 1:26:04pm

Is this for reals?
[Link: www.troopathon.org…]
Because Palin just twittered about it and the “guests” are a herd o’ rightwing crazies.
I don’t see any information on who is actually running this and if any money actually get to the “troops” in the form of care packages.

286 CuriousLurker  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 1:27:47pm

re: #274 lawhawk

Federalist #84 addresses this in some detail:

[…]

Not only does Hamilton argue that a bill of rights is unnecessary, but all the rights and limitations on federal government are enshrined already in the Constitution. Indeed, it appears that Hamilton believed that the Constitution was sufficiently limiting on government actions, including restricting the press, etc.,

However, this turned out to be the minority view because the Bill of Rights was necessary for the ratification of the Constitution since sufficient numbers of members wanted enumerated rights - and then left room for additional rights via the 9th and that rights not vested in the federal government or the people were to the states in the 10th.

Thanks, I missed that while I was typing & thinking. Looks like I need to do some more reading.

287 celticdragon  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 1:27:59pm

re: #278 Killgore Trout

Limbaugh: Dismissal of cases against black defendants “the natural course of events” with black AG and president

Holy shit. He actually used the ‘clean and articulate’ tropes of racism past.

288 albusteve  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 1:28:47pm

re: #278 Killgore Trout

Limbaugh: Dismissal of cases against black defendants “the natural course of events” with black AG and president

if there is nothing to it, why did Perez quit?…is he a lunatic too?

289 CuriousLurker  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 1:29:49pm

re: #284 celticdragon

Well, the alternative is that rights are not inalienable, and the State or Crown bestows them as seen fit. By that metric, there is no legal reason why Nazi Germany could not murder as many people as they liked, since the State decides what rights are.

That way leads to utilitarian madness.

Good point; that I can understand.

290 albusteve  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 1:30:55pm

re: #288 albusteve

I meant Adams, not Perez

291 RadicalModerate  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 1:32:02pm

White Supremacist RSM’s good buddy Flagg Youngblood is currently making his anti-Kagan statement in the Senate confirmation hearings.

292 HoosierHoops  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 1:33:03pm

re: #283 albusteve

well, on a lighter note…I saw a bunch of pictures of Kagan at the hearings..she was laughing and incredulous and very expressive making some hilarious faces…I loved those pics…she seems relaxed and easy going and no doubt prepared for the hearings…they can’t get to her and she knows it…she seems to be very likable in spite of all the pseudo intellectual spewage she has to address…I ‘d drink with her any day…vote her in and move on

I went into this open minded as opposed to the movement these days to paint any nominee as the spawn of the devil.
I like her…She will be a refreshing voice on the court…And she is a Jew!
I have no issues with her.. She is a liberal replacing a liberal..
But the only Judges I know are traffic Judges…I hate them..:)

293 celticdragon  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 1:33:03pm

re: #291 RadicalModerate

White Supremacist RSM’s good buddy Flagg Youngblood is currently making his anti-Kagan statement in the Senate confirmation hearings.

He sounds like a villain from a Stephen King novel.

294 Killgore Trout  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 1:33:22pm

re: #290 albusteve

I meant Adams, not Perez

You didn’t read the links I posted.

295 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 1:33:23pm

re: #291 RadicalModerate

White Supremacist RSM’s good buddy Flagg Youngblood is currently making his anti-Kagan statement in the Senate confirmation hearings.

That’s a real name?

That’s actually a real guy and not a comic book character?

296 Kragar  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 1:33:49pm

Preventing Homosexuality (and Uppity Women) in the Womb?

Two weeks ago, Time magazine reported on our ongoing efforts to protect the rights of pregnant women offered dexamethasone, a risky Class C steroid aimed at female fetuses that may have a form of congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH). It appears many women and children exposed to dexamethasone through this off-label use are not being enrolled in controlled clinical trials with IRB oversight, in spite of a persistent consensus among experts that this is the only way this treatment should be happening.

We have learned that, this August, the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism will publish an expert consensus again stating this use of prenatal dexamethasone should only happen via IRB-approved clinical trials through research centers large enough to obtain meaningful data. An announcement of the consensus came at the Endocrine Society’s meeting in San Diego last week (and an earlier version is available here).

This consensus has been endorsed by the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Lawson Wilkins Pediatric Endocrine Society, the European Society for Paediatric Endocrinology, the European Society of Endocrinology, the Society of Pediatric Urology, the Androgen Excess and PCOS Society, and the CARES Foundation. It was reached after review of the existing literature and consultation with researchers indicated significant cause for concern, including the fact that most of the children treated prenatally have been absent from follow-up studies.

The majority of researchers and clinicians interested in the use of prenatal “dex” focus on preventing development of ambiguous genitalia in girls with CAH. CAH results in an excess of androgens prenatally, and this can lead to a “masculinizing” of a female fetus’s genitals. One group of researchers, however, seems to be suggesting that prenatal dex also might prevent affected girls from turning out to be homosexual or bisexual.

Pediatric endocrinologist Maria New, of Mount Sinai School of Medicine and Florida International University, and her long-time collaborator, psychologist Heino F. L. Meyer-Bahlburg, of Columbia University, have been tracing evidence for the influence of prenatal androgens in sexual orientation. In a paper entitled “Sexual Orientation in Women with Classical or Non-Classical Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia as a Function of Degree of Prenatal Androgen Excess” published in 2008 in Archives of Sexual Behavior, Meyer-Bahlburg and New (with two others) gather evidence of “a dose-response relationship of androgens with sexual orientation” through a study of women with various forms of CAH.

297 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 1:33:58pm

re: #293 celticdragon

He sounds like a villain from a Stephen King novel.

He explodes into ravens and then reforms in the rotunda to save America from evil unmarried judges

298 celticdragon  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 1:34:49pm

re: #297 WindUpBird

He explodes into ravens and then reforms in the rotunda to save America from evil unmarried judges

That was frakking awesome! :D

Best laugh I have had today! :)

299 albusteve  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 1:34:49pm

re: #294 Killgore Trout

You didn’t read the links I posted.

I didn’t…upthread today?

300 celticdragon  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 1:35:43pm

re: #296 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Gattaca anybody?

301 Varek Raith  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 1:36:12pm

re: #295 WindUpBird

That’s a real name?

That’s actually a real guy and not a comic book character?

FLINT CHESTHAIR.

302 Kragar  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 1:37:27pm

re: #301 Varek Raith

FLINT CHESTHAIR.

CHIP BEEFSTEAK!

303 lawhawk  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 1:37:33pm

OT:
One of the alleged Russian spies admits to being in the Russian intel service. That would be Juan Lazaro, who is married to co-defendant Vicky Pelaez, who happens to work for Spanish language daily El Diario in NYC.

304 acacia  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 1:37:43pm

re: #290 albusteve

I don’t think the point that Media Matters is making is related to Holder’s directive. That may true. Who knows. Even if true though I suspect there’s a lot more to the story that Adams isn’t talking about. Anyway….It’s the “natural course” statement that MM was focused on implying that it was “inevitable” that once an African American gets into power he was going to discriminate on the basis of color.

305 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 1:38:05pm

re: #211 sattv4u2

which is not stated in any official state document
NOW,, if you are talking about The Establishment Clause, please remember that there are two distinct parts to that

You’re just playing dumb with semantics, you of course know that the establishment clause includes by definition a separation of church and state.

306 albusteve  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 1:38:38pm

KT
found them at #151, thanks

307 Kragar  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 1:39:20pm

re: #300 celticdragon

Gattaca anybody?

Sure, its risky drug being misrepresented and being used on pregnant women in a less than clinical manner as a possible cure to what is mainly a cultural issue. What could go wrong?

308 b_sharp  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 1:39:50pm

re: #259 celticdragon

There is no demonstrable connection between registration and crime control. Registration merely hands regulators a list of guns to confiscate later.

Gun registration does at least two things for law enforcement; it gives police the legal right to detain suspected criminals based on their possession of an unregistered weapon, and it gives them a heads-up during domestic disputes that weapons may be in the home.

Contrary to the conservative straw man that criminals will not register their weapons making it is a useless law, that isn’t one of the expectations of implementing gun registry.

However, that does not mean that gun registries are useful, I have yet to see a study that suggests gun registries are worth the money invested.

309 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 1:40:37pm

re: #115 Mad Al-Jaffee

Supreme Court Overturns Car
[Link: www.theonion.com…]

that’s one of my favorite things ever :D

310 Kragar  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 1:40:56pm

And now, the many names of David Ryder;

Youtube Video
311 b_sharp  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 1:42:14pm

re: #262 CuriousLurker

I’ve read through this whole thread and I still don’t understand what “natural rights” are supposed to be and, assuming they exist, who/what defines them.

Are they a group of empirical facts? Are they an agreed upon concept based on one or more philosophies? Are they God-given rights? Trying to fit them into any of those three categories just raises more questions and makes my head hurt.

I’m totally lost. *sigh*

I was going to wait until I caught up in the thread before I asked a similar question so I’m glad you asked.

312 Varek Raith  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 1:42:19pm

re: #310 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

And now, the many names of David Ryder;


[Video]

Smoke Man Muscle.

313 tradewind  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 1:42:32pm

re: #308 b_sharp

and it gives them a heads-up during domestic disputes that weapons may be in the home.


I don’t know where you live, but around here, they’re already making that assumption, with blue lights flashing while rolling, whenever they respond to a domestic disturbance call.

314 Killgore Trout  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 1:42:51pm

re: #299 albusteve

He quit after being reassigned within the department. His political activism was interfering with his work,

315 RadicalModerate  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 1:42:56pm

Good grief. Every person who’s testified against Kagan so far have been drumbeating anti-homosexual talking points.

316 b_sharp  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 1:43:00pm

re: #265 tradewind

But… but, don’t you think the government needs to know which gangs have what automatic weapons? //

You misunderstand the purpose of a gun registry.

317 Kragar  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 1:43:15pm

re: #312 Varek Raith

Smoke Man Muscle.

Big McLargehuge

318 Kragar  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 1:44:29pm

re: #316 b_sharp

You misunderstand the purpose of a gun registry.

I thought it was like a bridal registry, where you could list the gifts you wanted.

319 RadicalModerate  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 1:44:42pm

re: #317 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Big McLargehuge

Blast Hardcheese

320 tradewind  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 1:45:03pm

re: #295 WindUpBird
O/T: Why does Portland hate Al?
If they’ll let thousands of naked freaks roll through the streets at night, what’s one happy ending?//

321 GreenDroll  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 1:45:05pm

I am not so sure that a seat on the court shouldn’t at least require some fundamental understanding of, and agreement with, the principles that our system of justice is based on…. Just sayin….

322 Varek Raith  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 1:45:29pm

Bob Johnson.

323 Fozzie Bear  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 1:46:06pm

re: #321 GreenDroll

… on what?

324 Kragar  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 1:46:09pm

re: #322 Varek Raith

Bob Johnson.

Flint Ironstag!

325 tradewind  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 1:46:18pm

re: #316 b_sharp
Not at all.
But your understanding of it demonstrates the triumph of hope over experience./

326 celticdragon  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 1:47:11pm

re: #308 b_sharp

Gun registration does at least two things for law enforcement; it gives police the legal right to detain suspected criminals based on their possession of an unregistered weapon, and it gives them a heads-up during domestic disputes that weapons may be in the home

If a person is a suspect for anything other then the unregistered firearm, then the police should already have a reason to arrest. If not, you are criminalizing something that is not intrinsically wrong in of itself and merely making new criminals for the sake of making new criminals.

Police already assume that there weapons of some description in a house during a domestic dispute. They would be terminally stupid not to…

327 Kragar  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 1:48:15pm

And here we have segment 1 of 10 from the MST3k episode: Space Mutiny

Youtube Video

The best part, all the space battles are recycled Battlestar Gallactica special effects.

328 albusteve  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 1:48:18pm

re: #313 tradewind

I don’t know where you live, but around here, they’re already making that assumption, with blue lights flashing while rolling, whenever they respond to a domestic disturbance call.

my 2nd wife was screaming at me from her front door while I stood there saying nothing, and my 12 year old daughter watched from indoors…she called the police and in minutes two township and three county cops arrived….she reported me beating her senseless and I went straight to jail, in spite of the fact that I didn’t and my daughter flew to my rescue telling the cops her mom was lying…3 fucking days I sat there til they let me out on PR…a legal nightmare ensued that I won…and I won custody of my girl….I did it myself with no lawyer

329 celticdragon  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 1:48:45pm

re: #315 RadicalModerate

Good grief. Every person who’s testified against Kagan so far have been drumbeating anti-homosexual talking points.

Because teh ghey is da biggest evah threat to real ‘Merican values. That. Too. Also.

//

330 albusteve  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 1:49:09pm

re: #314 Killgore Trout

He quit after being reassigned within the department. His political activism was interfering with his work,

yes, I’m still looking at links…thanks again

331 webevintage  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 1:50:39pm

re: #321 GreenDroll

I am not so sure that a seat on the court shouldn’t at least require some fundamental understanding of, and agreement with, the principles that our system of justice is based on… Just sayin…

wow.
just…wow…

332 wrenchwench  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 1:50:44pm

re: #328 albusteve

Tough battle. You did good by your daughter, and vice-versa.

333 goddamnedfrank  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 1:52:20pm

re: #190 acacia

He may have said that at a speech but he certainly applied it in the McDonald case on the Second Amendment.

Of course he did, he’s a two-faced jerk. The fact that he was right in that case doesn’t absolve him of only giving a shit about the Fourteenth Amendment when doing so falls in line with conservative ideology. From Scalia’s dissent in United States v. Virginia et al.(The VMI case):

More specifically, it is my view that “when a practice not expressly prohibited by the text of the Bill of Rights bears the endorsement of a long tradition of open, widespread, and unchallenged use that dates back to the beginning of the Republic, we have no proper basis for striking it down.” Rutan v. Republican Party of Ill., 497 U.S. 62, 95 (1990) (Scalia, J., dissenting). The same applies, mutatis mutandis, to a practice asserted to be in violation of the post-Civil War Fourteenth Amendment. See, e.g., Burnham v. Superior Court of Cal., County of Marin, 495 U.S. 604 (1990) (plurality opinion of Scalia, J.) (Due Process Clause); J. E. B. v. Alabama ex rel. T. B., 511 U.S. 127, 156-163 (Scalia, J., dissenting) (Equal Protection Clause); Planned Parenthood of S. E. Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 979-984, 1000-1001 (1992) (Scalia, J., dissenting) (various alleged “penumbras”).

334 celticdragon  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 1:52:21pm

re: #328 albusteve

I’ve heard some similar stories from friends. Even after proving that an accuser is lying later in court, it is very unusual for legal action to be taken against that person even though his/her lies got you roughed up by the police and thrown in jail, sometimes for weeks.

Georgia is real, real bad about that.

335 Gus  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 1:53:23pm

re: #315 RadicalModerate

Good grief. Every person who’s testified against Kagan so far have been drumbeating anti-homosexual talking points.

Here’s the skinny on Pete Hegseth.

336 albusteve  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 1:53:55pm

re: #332 wrenchwench

Tough battle. You did good by your daughter, and vice-versa.

one battle out of many…and my daughter and I are so we squeek…she named her first baby boy after me!

337 celticdragon  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 1:56:43pm

re: #335 Gus 802

Here’s the skinny on Pete Hegseth.

I see he is buddies with Tony Perkins at the Family Research Council.

*hawk…spit*

338 Gus  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 1:57:16pm

re: #337 celticdragon

I see he is buddies with Tony Perkins at the Family Research Council.

*hawk…spit*

Yep. So-con clones.

339 b_sharp  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 1:57:42pm

re: #313 tradewind

I don’t know where you live, but around here, they’re already making that assumption, with blue lights flashing while rolling, whenever they respond to a domestic disturbance call.

I live in a province just about the size of Texas, containing 1.042 million people.

340 albusteve  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 1:59:24pm

re: #334 celticdragon

I’ve heard some similar stories from friends. Even after proving that an accuser is lying later in court, it is very unusual for legal action to be taken against that person even though his/her lies got you roughed up by the police and thrown in jail, sometimes for weeks.

Georgia is real, real bad about that.

I went to court six times regarding my daughter…they knew me well, and my custody case was a long time putting together…saving bills, paperwork from the court and various other personal documentation…it took three years to accumulate that stuff and figure it out…the day I went to court, I was wearing my “Worlds Greatest Dad” tee my daughter insisted I wear…I took on her lawyer and beat him

341 celticdragon  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 2:00:46pm

re: #340 albusteve

Good. That is the best feeling when you are finally vindicated!

342 b_sharp  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 2:05:16pm

re: #325 tradewind

Not at all.
But your understanding of it demonstrates the triumph of hope over experience./

My point was that the registry isn’t intended to keep track of weapons in the hands of criminals, but to give the police another option for arrests.

If you go back to my original comment you’ll see I have my own doubts about the efficacy of the law. BTW, Canada has had an all inclusive gun registry since 1995, and a handgun registry since 1934.

343 albusteve  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 2:07:55pm

re: #341 celticdragon

Good. That is the best feeling when you are finally vindicated!

there’s even more…at the end the lawyer admitted to the judge that his fee for representing my ex was to be paid off to him on a monthly basis, and I argued that that was my OWN support money she was using to persecute me on trumped up charges…short story, I got half of that money back…$1800…my ex was stunned into a fucking wordless stupor…she lost custody, was proven to be a pathological liar and then had to cough up the money….a huge victory for all abused dads

344 ClaudeMonet  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 2:07:55pm

re: #60 The Curmudgeon

Of course I see it. But in response, Kagan could have spoken about natural rights. Instead she fell into his trap. She said, in effect, that if a right isn’t in the Constitution then it doesn’t exist. That’s not only wrong, it contradicts the Ninth.

What she said is that her job as a Justice would be to interpret the Constitution and laws (excuse me, for her that’s “lawrs”) as they exist. That includes the Ninth Amendment. She didn’t fall into any trap.

BTW, did anyone notice how Coburn used the phrase, “God-given inalienable rights”? IIRC that’s not a quote from anywhere in the Declaration or the Constitution.

And someone should tell Coburn that he shouldn’t wear that tie with that suit. Evidently his good friend and next-door neighbor Jesus didn’t give him lessons on how to coordinate an outfit.

345 ClaudeMonet  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 2:11:55pm

re: #94 sattv4u2

FINALLY, a solution to my problem!

You’d have to remember where you put your pants first.

346 acacia  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 2:13:39pm

re: #333 goddamnedfrank

I’m not sure I follow you on the VMI decision. He is simply saying that same sex education does not violate the equal protection clause. The majority said otherwise. No big deal as reasonable people could conclude either way on that one.

347 Cato the Elder  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 2:15:28pm

re: #344 ClaudeMonet

BTW, did anyone notice how Coburn used the phrase, “God-given inalienable rights”? IIRC that’s not a quote from anywhere in the Declaration or the Constitution.

Preamble to the Declaration:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

There you go. Not much room for interpretation.

348 Fozzie Bear  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 2:17:42pm

re: #347 Cato the Elder

So my mom gave me inalienable rights? Thanks mom!

349 Cato the Elder  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 2:19:19pm

re: #348 Fozzie Bear

So my mom gave me inalienable rights? Thanks mom!

While your at it, thank your Dad.

350 goddamnedfrank  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 2:22:33pm

re: #346 acacia

I’m not sure I follow you on the VMI decision. He is simply saying that state run same sex gender exclusive education does not violate the equal protection clause. The majority said otherwise. No big deal as reasonable people could conclude either way on that one.

No, you’re wrong, reasonable people cannot conclude that excluding women from a state run school with no all female analog constitutes equal application or protection of the law. Such a position is pure cognitive dissonance.

351 HoosierHoops  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 2:23:51pm

re: #347 Cato the Elder

Preamble to the Declaration:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

There you go. Not much room for interpretation.

Ok Cato…(Hi Bro)
I can’t find anything in the Bible that states we have any rights at all on this earth.. I find 300 promises…No Rights…It would have helped if the founding fathers provided a link to God’s Words that provide me with the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness…
I may be wrong..But I don’t think God has stated any rights in the Bible…

352 Gus  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 2:26:54pm

Looking at the Kagan confirmation hearings. All of the Senators are old white men. Most even have white hair.

Now we have the first round of “witnesses”. They’re all white. Second round are all white.

353 windsagio  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 2:26:55pm

re: #351 HoosierHoops

It seems to be largely laws and statements of principle >>

354 windsagio  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 2:28:47pm

re: #352 Gus 802

Pff :p Don’t act shocked!

355 albusteve  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 2:29:06pm

re: #352 Gus 802

Looking at the Kagan confirmation hearings. All of the Senators are old white men. Most even have white hair.

Now we have the first round of “witnesses”. They’re all white. Second round are all white.

lot of white people…so what do you think it means, all those whites?

356 windsagio  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 2:29:57pm

re: #355 albusteve

I’ll bite, I think its interesting that our ‘representation’ is so out of sync with our demographics. Like I said tho’, nobody should be amazed by the fact ;)

357 Gus  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 2:30:58pm

re: #355 albusteve

lot of white people…so what do you think it means, all those whites?

It means old white men still control the political power in this country.

Yep, whiter than white with white hair. They’re seem to be predominantly WASPs too. Waspy WASPs.

358 Gus  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 2:32:23pm

re: #356 windsagio

I’ll bite, I think its interesting that our ‘representation’ is so out of sync with our demographics. Like I said tho’, nobody should be amazed by the fact ;)

I’m not amazed. The white hair was what first got my attention.

Old white guys.

359 Cato the Elder  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 2:32:27pm

re: #351 HoosierHoops

Ok Cato…(Hi Bro)
I can’t find anything in the Bible that states we have any rights at all on this earth.. I find 300 promises…No Rights…It would have helped if the founding fathers provided a link to God’s Words that provide me with the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness…
I may be wrong..But I don’t think God has stated any rights in the Bible…

We aren’t talking about the Bible. We’re talking about the Declaration.

What it says is what it says.

Make of it what you will.

360 HoosierHoops  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 2:37:36pm

re: #347 Cato the Elder

Preamble to the Declaration:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

There you go. Not much room for interpretation.

Well the Creator is mentioned.. IE: God
I’m just fact checking the Founding Fathers….They say you are endowed by the Creator..
I say prove it…Where did He say that?
/I’m just tired Cato..Need a nap probably.. Hope you are well

361 Gus  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 2:37:42pm

Meet Kagan’s Astroturf Military Attackers

When witnesses are called before the Senate Judiciary Committee to discuss Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan this week, the minority party will deploy a heavy military offensive against her: Republican senators plan to call three former officers who will likely testify that Kagan is a pro-gay, anti-troops, anti-American extremist who barred military recruiters from campus when she was the dean of Harvard Law School.

All lean, clean-cut, and articulate, the three men look to be part of America’s best and brightest. But these witnesses aren’t typical rank-and-file soldiers: They’re paid professional conservative activists.

SNIP

Youngblood’s views on Kagan are well-known: He’s called her “an anti-military zealot” and a “Supreme Court sleeper agent,” and just Monday, he used Oath Keepers-style language to paint the nominee as an insidious extension of President Obama’s executive power: “In the last 18 months, the president and his plotting comrades have dragged the United States to the edge of Constitutional oblivion. America’s in the eleventh hour, and Elena Obama must be stopped from pushing us over the cliff.”

SNIP

362 windsagio  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 2:40:19pm

re: #361 Gus 802

When’s John O’Neill up? I wanna catch his testimony >>

363 Gus  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 2:40:54pm

re: #362 windsagio

When’s John O’Neill up? I wanna catch his testimony >>

I have this up…

[Link: cspan.org…]

364 windsagio  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 2:43:14pm

re: #363 Gus 802

Actually caught some of that while at work the last few days… talk about unbearable to watch >

365 tradewind  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 2:49:42pm

re: #328 albusteve
Wow.
Glad things worked out.

366 acacia  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 2:50:43pm

re: #350 goddamnedfrank

You’re right when you put in the caveat “with no female analog.” But there are two reasonable sides to the argument about same sex schools in general which (I think) was his point in the part you were quoting. I’m personally not for it - regardless of whether there are such schools for both sexes -because I believe that an important part of education is learning to interact with people of both sexes but I don’t believe it is pure cognitive dissonance to have the other view.

367 tradewind  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 2:51:12pm

re: #361 Gus 802
So they’re not former military officers, they just play them on tv?

368 tradewind  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 2:52:28pm

re: #357 Gus 802
Al Franken’s feelings would be hurt.
That is, if he’d stay awake long enough to hear you./

369 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 3:06:28pm

re: #367 tradewind

So they’re not former military officers, they just play them on tv?

Well, they’re rank scumbags who are defiling the military with their sewage, but yes, they were once officers!

There’s no shortage of people willing to take a paycheck to dishonor their service, sadly…

370 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 3:07:29pm

re: #361 Gus 802

Pro-gay and anti-troops!

Imagine the tiny, smooth, dog-like brain that this sort of language works on.

371 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 3:08:55pm

re: #315 RadicalModerate

Good grief. Every person who’s testified against Kagan so far have been drumbeating anti-homosexual talking points.

Well, she does have short hair and isn’t married!

372 brownbagj  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 3:11:01pm

re: #371 WindUpBird

Well, she does have short hair and isn’t married!

But is she neat?

373 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 3:12:52pm

re: #372 brownbagj

But is she neat?

I’m not sure, I’d need to examine her sock drawer

374 windsagio  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 3:13:40pm

re: #371 WindUpBird

I have to admit I’m hoping she really is secretly gay.

I want our nation to have that feather in its cap, even if it had to sneak it on :)

375 Buck  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 3:43:24pm

re: #151 Killgore Trout

It bogus. Instapundit, PJM, Fox and Roger Simon are still bleating about it but it’s more dishonest and easily debunked garbage.

It is interesting that you and I can watch the same video and come to a completely different conclusion.

Maybe you didn’t see what Bartle Bull had to say about what he witnessed that day.

[Link: 204.74.214.194…]

Maybe you will dismiss this because it comes from Fox News.

So maybe you read his affidavit [Link: michellemalkin.cachefly.net…] differently than I do.

376 goddamnedfrank  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 3:47:08pm

re: #366 acacia

You’re right when you put in the caveat “with no female analog.” But there are two reasonable sides to the argument about same sex schools in general which (I think) was his point in the part you were quoting. I’m personally not for it - regardless of whether there are such schools for both sexes -because I believe that an important part of education is learning to interact with people of both sexes but I don’t believe it is pure cognitive dissonance to have the other view.

Calling the facts of the case a “caveat” isn’t very instructive and frankly comes off as pissy goal post moving. The argument wasn’t about same sex education in general, it was a specific case of overt, state sponsored and taxpayer funded inequality, a practice that Scalia was unambiguously in favor of allowing.

377 Dr. Shalit  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 5:43:01pm

Everyone -

There WERE “Natural Rights” - of what were then “Englishmen/Colonists.” As to their origin, whether from G-d, English Common Law, or otherwise is open to debate. As for Thomas Jefferson, who wrote the Declaration, he chose the words - “Endowed By Their Creator” which for the time was a neutral statement. Go from there.

-S-

378 Subroutine  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 6:17:12pm

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

No god ever spoke those words. They were written by men, flesh and blood men who professed to know the mind of their creator. Not likely….since they subsequently relegated blacks to three-fifths of one of their own while allowing ownership of small populations of equally created men.

379 calochortus  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 6:58:41pm

Since this thread is still going, I’ll just pop back in and say with regards to my earlier thoughts on where rights come from-I don’t think people are born with an innate list of specific rights they feel entitled to, nor do I think rights were handed down from on high. I do think people are born with a sense of fairness and what has been called moral accounting.
Once you recognize others as being like yourself, most people feel a need to be fair and treat them as they wish to be treated themselves. The better off we become in terms of survival, the more people we can afford to let into the “like me” category with its attendant rights. Like controlling your own body.

380 Petero1818  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 7:54:03pm

re: #378 Subroutine

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

If I am not mistaken that is all that the illegal Mexican immigrants want. The right to freely pursue happiness. Perhaps US immigration laws are unnatural and an affront to God.

381 ClaudeMonet  Thu, Jul 1, 2010 8:58:50pm

re: #287 celticdragon

Holy shit. He actually used the ‘clean and articulate’ tropes of racism past.

Aren’t those also some past words of some used-to-be-important guy named Biden? Or was Biden just borrowing without attribution, as he is wont to do?

One of these days, perhaps the Rabid Right will realize that there are phrases that set off everyone not among their group, just as there are phrases that set off the wingnuts.

382 ಠ_ಠ  Fri, Jul 2, 2010 9:13:54am

Did anybody else notice the scrunched up face on the girl to the right behind the Coburn? She looks like she’s catching a whiff of the steamy turds coming out of Coburn’s mouth.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
The Pandemic Cost 7 Million Lives, but Talks to Prevent a Repeat Stall In late 2021, as the world reeled from the arrival of the highly contagious omicron variant of the coronavirus, representatives of almost 200 countries met - some online, some in-person in Geneva - hoping to forestall a future worldwide ...
Cheechako
3 days ago
Views: 116 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
2 weeks ago
Views: 277 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1