15 Comments posted.

On 7/20/08 at 10:52 am, An overzealous law-student-to-be! proclaimed...

It’s a media thing. Your little KVOA story also probably mentioned crowds of protesters. This has the effect of getting lodged in the public brain that the country doesn’t like Bush. (Bear in mind, I’m not talking about individuals at this moment - the public masses, who will be voting, will not be analyzing anything but just assimilating bits & pieces of media & other publicity.) And that is the protesters’ goal.
Besides, how would the President & his supporters know how unhappy the common people are if the protesters don’t get out there & tell them? Besides, any protester with integrity doesn’t really care who is going to see him; it is his right to express his complaints, and he’s going to take it.

---

On 7/20/08 at 5:58 pm, That sarah girl proclaimed...

“how would the President & his supporters know how unhappy the common people are if the protesters don’t get out there & tell them?”

Well we don’t live in the dark ages. We live in a society that is in constant exchange of information were people want to give their opinion to everyone. .com/blog Opinion polls are *everywhere*, public forums, write enough talking heads and you can get your “imho” on the air! There is no good reason to tie up industry like this. You would have to have your head buried in the sand to think that other people’s heads were so far under terra firma that they *didn’t* know about the decent.

In fact this only gives further credence to the idea that liberals simply don’t want to work because there they are on the street *not* working. Yes people have the right to protest but when people already think you are lazy maybe missing work when you could have written a blog isn’t the best idea.

I really hope a protester missed work, got fired, then complained as if their rights to protest trump the rights of the private company (who employed them) to fire someone who didn’t show up to work.

“This has the effect of getting lodged in the public brain that the country doesn’t like Bush.”

The media is dominated by liberal voices. That’s cool and all as the media is historically a liberal outlet but what you are saying is that liberals are brainwashing America. This also goes into how the vast majority of the American sheeple need their information spoon fed to them because cspan is apparently confusing.

The problem that the libtards don’t understand is that regardless of what is subconsciously squeezed into the mass populous head they don’t actually vote that way. Case in point: gay marriage. One of my friends back home campaigned his ass off for gay marriage. Protested made a scene etc. was *sure* he got the word out. The vote came back with less than 5% in favor. Now that the people have voted it down the obvious minority of supporters are making this a court matter (going above the people’s head) and citing the 14th amendment to do it. As a law student to be I’m sure that you understand that the 14th amendment is unconstitutional as it strips state rights as well as illegal as it never received the votes needed for ratification and the president vetoed it (unconstitutional and all).

So all in all I sincerely hope that the post was missed sarcasm.

---

On 7/20/08 at 7:28 pm, An overzealous law-student-to-be! proclaimed...

Yeah, mostly sarcasm…as an involuntary “liberal-by-default” I thought I’d shed some insight into the liberal thought process, with which I do not always agree. There was a passage explaining that in the original post, but I used the wrong kind of brackets around it & it got lost. (Blonde moment, I guess…sheesh.)
Though I have to wonder…if protesters in fact were all carted off to death camps, how does that fit in with the much-vaunted ideas of free expression & free assembly? And how do you determine which causes are OK to protest about, and which ones you get hauled away for? Or do you just say, anyone who questions what the government is doing must automatically be an Enemy of the State & destroyed?(Here come the Brown Shirts!)
I must also point out that whether or not an amendment was added to the Constitution through established methods (or whether the desires of what was, in effect, a conquered nation are taken into consideration), the fact remains that it is part of the Constitution, has been subjected to judicial review, and has never been repealed, and is, by definition, Constitutional.
I think people misunderstand the role of the courts. The tripartite system was established as a series of checks & balances, so the executive branch can check the legislative & vice versa, both of which branches in theory represent the Will of the People. The Judicial branch exists as a check on the tyranny of the majority. When the system was developed, it was understood that at times, the majority would choose to trample on the rights of the minority - this is one of the essential problems of a democracy. We, thank goodness, do not live in a democracy. We live in a republic, and there are times, albeit infrequently, when the will of the majority must be set aside for the rights of the minority.

All of which has nothing to do with protesters celebrating their rights to express their dissatisfaction and participating in a long, glorious tradition of peaceful action against government power (or making asses of themselves, depending on your point of view).

---

On 7/20/08 at 9:12 pm, That sarah girl proclaimed...

“Though I have to wonder…if protesters in fact were all carted off to death camps, how does that fit in with the much-vaunted ideas of free expression & free assembly?”

Well as long as the government didn’t do it. No one said the camps should be government funded or supported. oh *evil*

As for the 14th amendment it was voted down and vetoed. It is illegal. It takes away state rights, it’s unconstitutional.

How can you cite checks and balances and then say “well they failed but that’s okay because it’s an amendment *now*”? That’s what your saying. That it’s completely worthless that we have those checks and balances because congress can just sneak in amendments. The 14th amendment got through because the war had just claimed the lives of how many soldiers. We were tired. The defeated south was being punished for utilizing it’s right to secession and the union thought it was god. There are few (Libertarian) scholars who are fighting this tooth and nail because it’s our *rights* you can’t just say “oh well my constitutional freedoms where just hijacked, oh well. Those checks and balances are brilliant and work well”.

The truth is that when people don’t feel like they want to be in a democratic society anymore they go to the courts and bully the rest of the population into accepting their fringe lifestyle. The minority think their rights trump those of others and they don’t. The 14th amendment takes away the rights of the private business owner to say “we don’t serve, hire, or associate with Irish women”. That’s wrong. Private business is run by private citizens and they do have rights. The courts have been used as a game of “mother may i” with whiny children who society has said “no” too time and time again. That’s not what they are for.

The Constitution is not there to protect private citizen a from repressing private citizen b. It’s to make sure that the government does not repress rights and currently the minority is hijacking that concept. This c’est la vie attitude towards illegal government actions is one of the ways that bit by bit we are becoming socialists.

Socialism is far far away from a republic or a democracy. Though the two are closely related Republics give the ILLUSION that the people can have a say in the government. That isn’t exactly the spirit of a government that is by the people or for the people. By the people, for the people, of the people, is democracy.

Now the difference likes to be chatted up that the word republic is thrown around and it is. However it’s the bill of rights that makes us a republic… the illegal 14th amendment forces that bill of rights onto states.

Understand that this is not what the founding fathers wanted. This is what they didn’t want. We as Americans were supposed to be something different and special. If you didn’t like what the majority had to say then get out. If you weren’t self reliant than get out. That is the spirit that this country was founded on. If the current state of things was acceptable then there wouldn’t be protesters. We must return to the original ideas that this country was founded on. Leaving those radical, earth changing ideas has done nothing but lead to our downfall.

So in essence special interests groups have crippled our country, decade after decade, century after century. They should feel ashamed for themselves.

---

On 7/21/08 at 12:01 am, The Man from Io proclaimed...

Children, children. I think we can all agree that liberals suck (but dude, a death camp, seriously, lighten up). The purpose of the protester, rightly or wrongly, is to get their message out to the people who see them (the commuters who passed by Ina and Oracle, in this example). To call them lazy, well, I guess they got up early enough to go stand a street corner waving a sign. Too early for me…

And Sarah, the 14th Amendment… you have a problem with the 14th Amendment… sure, you could argue about it’s application w.r.t. abortion and privacy issues, but what does this have to do with a bunch of idiots waving signs around on Friday.

---

On 7/21/08 at 12:02 am, The Man from Io proclaimed...

And leave my grammatical inaccuracies out of this, it is late. I am tired. Grammar nazis are the lowest form of life.

---

On 7/21/08 at 12:08 am, The Man from Io proclaimed...

Now I get it, you were responding to another comment on a different post…

---

On 7/21/08 at 12:26 am, That sarah girl proclaimed...

well my problem with the protesters is outlined in my blog. Simply put the irony that people see liberals as lazy and there they are… skipping work and holding up people from going to work.

My problem with the 14th amendment is easy peasy. It’s illegal and unconstitutional there is no point in checks and balances when one part of the government can just willy-nilly throw things into the constitution and then 100 years later no one says anything because it’s already there and they are dry humping it for privileges not intended to be granted by the original constitution.

---

On 7/21/08 at 7:34 am, An overzealous law-student-to-be! proclaimed...

Good morning…wow, that’s some rant you have going there. However, I think you misread my post.

It is apparent that we have very different views about what government should be. I am not interested in trying to change your point of view, and you will be unsuccessful in changing mine.

However, I am not arguing about how things should be. I am merely stating how they are.

It is a fact that the 14th Amendment is a part of our nation’s body of law and is enforceable as such. It makes no difference how it got there. It is part of the Constitution and is therefore Constitutional by definition, and remains so until repealed. Whether you agree that it should be there or not is irrelevant to whether it can be used as the basis of a Constitutional argument in a court of law.

It is a fact that it is illegal for a private business to discriminate on the basis of sex or nationality, whether you agree with it or not.

It is a fact that it is illegal for private citizens to organize death camps for protesters, perhaps even more so than it would be for the government to engage in such acts – our current system could probably make the argument that they were worried about terrorism and shuttle said protesters off somewhere to do God-knows-what to them, with little or no oversight.

It is a fact that protesters have a right to assemble where they will, provided they aren’t doing anything illegal in doing so, and it is a fact that they have a long history of such gatherings as a way to effect change in a system to which they object.

I have made no qualitative statements about whether the system works or whether things are as they should be. I merely pointed out that the judicial system was designed as a check on the will of the majority, because I find the complaint that the courts “go over the people’s heads” very annoying, as it seems to miss the point. (Or rather, it gets the point, but doesn’t realize that it has hit the nail on the head.)

If you dislike the way the law is currently, you fortunately have a few options available. You can vote for people who you think will appoint judges who will interpret the law differently. You can write angry letters to your representatives and hope they pay attention. You can organize a protest – and hope that your representatives pay attention. You can bark about it on the Internet – and hope that your representatives find it, read it, and pay attention. Up to you.

---

On 7/21/08 at 7:20 pm, That sarah girl proclaimed...

I find it fitting that a “law student to-be” could be so shut down that they are unwilling to have their opinions changed. It speaks volumes as to how we’ve just gone alone with the derailment of this country. I don’t understand the interest in law with such blatant complacency for it. The law was broken and the rights of the people were repressed in a move a tyranny that is an outrage! I see complacency the same as I see treason. The American people are being bullied, this country was founded on not taking that very lightly. It’s a regret that so many lives were lost for nothing now. I personally can’t shrug off the blood sacrifices made for my freedom to discriminate on my private property.

The problem is that since the 14th is *illegal*, the following is inaccurate “It is a fact that it is illegal for a private business to discriminate on the basis of sex or nationality”. You simply can’t base a law on something that is unlawful in it’s self. Not to mention laws that are found to be unconstitutional. Since the 14th amendment represses the rights of the state it’s unconstitutional. Again, Libertarian movement. Not to mention how *wrong* it is to repress the rights of a business owner. Seriously.

People use the courts to do that though. People use the courts everyday to repress the business owners rights. Who they can and can not serve. How many handicapped parking spots they have to have. Who they can and can not hire. So yes the fact that people go to court and push their values on other people and force them to serve them is *wrong*. Everyone has the right to uphold their belief system. So when a photographer is taken to court for not shooting a lesbian wedding because she’s Catholic and it’s against her beliefs I want to vomit. I can’t believe we allow such repression of personal rights. Those things that we have always held so dearly are now taken away because people don’t get their way and have to act like children. Why don’t they just leave? Sitting back accepting tyranny is the difference between a British man and an American one.

I have no idea how anyone can say that their rights come before someone else’s and when you force someone to do something under the threat of legal action that *is* what you are doing. You don’t have the right to go to to private company x. That isn’t in the constitution. The Constitution isn’t your shield against mean people.

When the judicial system fails at their job of holding up legality then I have no respect for them to check the will of the people. They have been failing for 100+ years.

The only problems I have with the law is that they are not upheld. The 14th amendment has been used to give children their way for well over 100 years and it’s vulgar complacency that allows it to rip this country from us one handicapped parking spot, wheelchair access ramp, unfit worker, affirmative action candidate (etc..) at a time.

Other than that. no one disagreed with protesting as a right and death camps as illegal.

---

On 7/21/08 at 9:42 pm, mmm yah proclaimed...

It seems you are arguing that the 14th Amendment is unconstitutional. If this is the case my response is as follows; if this is not the case, please enlighten me.

First, just to get it out of the way, I feel it needs to be stated that nowhere in the 14th Amendment is discrimination mentioned. The closest you get is,

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

This simply affirms that all people born in the USA or naturalized are citizens and cannot be denied the rights and responsibilities of any other citizen. You claim that this was illegally passed; I cite congressional record.

1. Connecticut June 25th 1866
2. New Hampshire July 6th 1866
3. Tennessee July 19th 1866
4. New Jersey September 11th 1866
5. Oregon September 19th 1866
6. Vermont October 30th 1866
7. Ohio January 4th 1867
8. New York January 10th 1867
9. Kansas January 11th 1867
10. Illinois January 15th 1867
11. West Virginia January 16th 1867
12. Michigan January 16th 1867
13. Minnesota January 16th 1867
14. Maine January 19th 1867
15. Nevada January 22 1867
16. Indiana January 23rd 1867
17. Missouri January 25th 1867
18. Rhode Island February 7th 1867
19. Wisconsin February 7th 1867
20. Pennsylvania February 12th 1867
21. Massachusetts March 20th 1867
22. Nebraska June 15th 1867
23. Iowa March 16 1867
24. Arkansas April 6th 1867
25. Florida June 9th 18367
26. North Carolina July 4th 1868
27. Louisiana July 9th 1868
28. South Carolina July 9th 1868
29. Alabama July 13th 1868
30. Georgia July 21st 1868

Now it is true that New Jersey and Ohio tried to rescind their ratification, something that there is no established way to do, and something that Congress rejected as invalid; however, even without those two states’ ratification, the required 3/4th majority for passage of a constitutional amendment is maintained. Hence, the 14th Amendment was legally added to the Constitution of the United States.
If you have issue with how Congress was formed in this instance, keep in mind that the Confederate states had withdrawn from Congress. The fact that they were still included in the ratification process is nothing short of amazing. The fact is that the congress of the United States has the ability to alter the constitution, providing there are enough yea votes. This amendment enforces the idea that the states cannot take away what the federal government gives the people. This has been challenged in front of the Supreme Court (the only court with ultimate authority as to what the Constitution means) and has been upheld by that court for the past 150 years.

Now as for your issues with antidiscrimination laws - these are in no way directly related to the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment only asserts their validity to all people subject to the jurisdiction of the United States of America or any one of the several states.

I believe the primary law you are complaining about is the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which was approved by the people at 73% in the Senate and 70% in the House. This provides that the legislation was legally passed, and per the Constitution of the United States, is applicable to all.

In no way am I asking you to agree, or like it, but this is what happened. Revisionist history doesn’t fly here.

---

On 7/21/08 at 10:01 pm, A law student… proclaimed...

Once again, you have completely failed to understand what I am saying. When I began this discussion, I merely wanted to point out that just because you dislike the way a given system works; just because you believe it should be otherwise; does not mean that it is otherwise and it is the height of folly to argue that it is otherwise.

You are not a Supreme Court justice. You do not have the authority to say what is and is not constitutional. You also are not an enforcer of that court or of any other branch of government. You saying a thing is unconstitutional does not change the fact that the Supreme Court says it is constitutional, and their opinion is the one that matters when it comes to getting something done.

Do I agree that this is right? Irrelevant to the discussion I was having. Do I think we should change the 14th Amendment? Also irrelevant to the discussion I was having. In point of fact, I disagree with your take on whether it should be enforced or not; however, I am not interested in changing the point of view of a lone individual. I don’t think that changing your mind about issues will do anything to advance my pet causes, none of which I have chosen to discuss in this forum.

You complain that people whose opinions you disagree with use the judicial system to change the laws of the land to more suit their point of view. You complain that these same people organize protests.
You forget that people whose opinion you do agree with do the same thing. The judicial system is the forum where citizens can argue the finer points of the law to try and advance their own point of view. I argue that this is a far more preferable method than, say, shooting those people you disagree with on sight (although that might solve some of our overpopulation problems).

The upshot of all this is that you find yourself in a situation where the laws of the land do not line up with your personal view of how the laws should be. My question to you is, what do you plan to do about it?

You cannot argue it in the courts without becoming a hypocrite.
You cannot protest on the street corners; same reason.
You can blog to your heart’s content, I suppose; good luck with that.
You could start shooting people who disagree with you, which might be very satisfactory on a personal level but would ultimately hurt your cause & probably wind you in prison or dead.

So what will you do?

---

On 7/21/08 at 11:17 pm, That sarah girl proclaimed...

In opposition:

Texas rejected the 14th Amendment on Oct. 27, 1866
Georgia rejected the 14th Amendment on Nov. 9, 1866.
Florida rejected the 14th Amendment on Dec. 6, 1866.
Alabama rejected the 14th Amendment on Dec. 7, 1866.
North Carolina rejected the 14th Amendment on Dec. 14, 1866.
Arkansas rejected the 14th Amendment on Dec. 17, 1866.
South Carolina rejected the 14th Amendment on Dec. 20, 1866.
Kentucky rejected the 14th Amendment on Jan. 8, 1867.
Virginia rejected the 14th Amendment on Jan. 9, 1867.
Louisiana rejected the 14th Amendment on Feb. 6, 1867.
Delaware rejected the 14th Amendment on Feb. 7, 1867.
Maryland rejected the l4th amendment on Mar. 23, 1867.
Mississippi rejected the 14th Amendment on Jan. 31, 1867.
Ohio rejected the 14th amendment on Jan. 16, 1868.
New Jersey rejected the 14th Amendment on Mar. 24, 1868.

All per the House Journal Of 1866, they did reject and it was on the records.

The civil war was about keeping the union intact. (well and keeping jobs for free white men. That was the North’s official position). You are right, it is a miracle they were heard seeing that the Union wanted to make slaves out of the southern states and deny them their right to representation. Thank God we had a president who wasn’t busy getting blowies.

President Andrew Johnson, in his Veto message of March 2, 1867

“It is not denied that the States in question have each of them an actual government with all the powers, executive, judicial and legislative, which properly belong to a free State. They are organized like the other States of the Union, and, like them they make, administer, and execute the laws which concern their domestic affairs.”

The federal courts actually refuse to hear argument on the invalidity of the 14th Amendment, even when the issue is presented squarely by the pleadings and the evidence as above. Why? well when was the last time America made a mistake?

You may want to check out http://www.constitution.org/14ll/no14th.htm

The 14th had “Equal Protection Clauses”. This imposed the bill of rights on state government. Prior to the 14th that was only on the lap of the federal government. Now most civil liberty laws have been passed under the “commerce clause”…”The Congress shall have power . . . To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;”

The civil rights act is an extension of the 14th amendment to private citizens. So you have an unconstitutional and illegal amendment as the base of a law… um no. you can not make a law that’s base is illegal OR unconstitutional.

The Civil Rights Act takes away the rights of private citizens to conduct themselves in a manner that they as private citizens see fit in doing business. This country was founded on the rights of the private citizens (also the base of the Libertarian party i might add). This is the death of freedom. Liberals are holding the head of the American private citizen under water and it simply is not acceptable.

So you take the 14th amendment impossing federal regs on the state (negating the 10th amendment I might add) and then the enter the “commerce clause” which get’s applied to private citizens and you have tyranny.

It isn’t as simple as saying that *I* don’t agree with x,y,or z. Andrew Johnson stood up for the American ideas and was thrown out of office for it. The facts support this. I’m not just saying “philosphically speaking I disagree with the 14th amendment”. I’m not saying that at all. I’m saying very clearly that this country was hoodwinked into believing that the 14th amendment is legal and that laws that it opened the door for are not legal. This is fact.

Thank god I’m not a Supreme Court justice! Bowing down to a government who allows things like this to happen = lap dog. That does not however take away from the ability to submit facts that have sited sources that confirm that the 14th amendment is a “myth”. I seriously can not believed that you aren’t outraged by this hijacking of rights. “the fact that the Supreme Court says it is constitutional, and their opinion is the one that matters when it comes to getting something done.” The government is not my daddy. My founding fathers didn’t take that shit and neither do i.

I never asked you what you thought of it. The fact that you aren’t immediately repulsed by this and say “It is a fact that it is illegal for a private business to discriminate on the basis of sex or nationality, whether you agree with it or not.” speaks volumes. The fact is you believe that there is a legal leg for the government to stand on when it comes to repressing private business owners rights, speaks volumes. I reject that it is legal. It is not.

“You complain that people whose opinions you disagree with use the judicial system to change the laws of the land to more suit their point of view.”

No i complain that people who are voted down run to the courts and *cry* like children, manipulate law, and profit off of illegal government actions.

“The upshot of all this is that you find yourself in a situation where the laws of the land do not line up with your personal view of how the laws should be. My question to you is, what do you plan to do about it?”

That is not an upshot. I’m not happy that if i find myself in love with a girl ready to marry her (has happened) and I’m not allowed to that I can run to the courts to go over the people’s heads. That’s bullshit, I’m patriotic and believe in the will of the people (in regards to lawful laws). I’m not going to force people to do x,y,z, if you didn’t notice, socially that creates “hate crimes”. I am not willing to inflict a negative impact on everyone so that i can get my way. I think of other people. If i wanted to bully people into accepting me i would move to a socialist country. Americans have a right to vote and shape their community within the confines of the law.

As far as what I do? I’ll actually support Libertarian ideas and candidates and not just give it lip service like most people do.

---

On 7/22/08 at 6:01 am, A law student proclaimed...

I was going to post something about the incongruity of using a case in a state court as an example of the ways state rights are usurped by federal law (as per your complaint about the lesbians who sued the photographer; although I have not researched that particular case, that was clearly a state matter as no federal law exists protecting sexual preference), but I think I have some insight into the real crux of our disagreement.

I think we’re using different definitions of the term “legal.” I am using “legal” in the sense of laws currently on the books and currently enforced. You seem to be using “legal” in the sense of…well, I’m not sure. You’ll have to enlighten me. But from where I’m sitting, it seems to have something to do with your own interpretation of said laws, rather than the interpretations of the courts.

I am not arguing about what is “right;” I am merely attacking poor logic. I could go through and find every inconsistency & fallacy in your arguments, but frankly, I have a lot to do today & I don’t have time. It’s great that you have such strong convictions. I don’t even disagree with all of them, and I definitely agree that it is repugnant that one is forced to follow liberal ideals if one belongs to a minority group & wishes her rights upheld (I do, personally, view marriage as a right; however, I recognize that not everyone sees it that way).

Um, have to do deal with day-to-day existence now. TTYL!

---

On 7/22/08 at 9:30 pm, That sarah girl proclaimed...

I’m not sure how you have some sort of insight in the crux of our disagreement while you don’t understand and are not familiar with the case in points that i bring up. That is illogical. “I have no reference as to what you speak however *I* understand this better than you do.” It’s like someone who just learned Japanese was explaining Japanese euphemisms to a native speaker.

Elaine Huguenin was sued by lesbians when she refused to photograph their wedding. Stating her private business only photographed traditional weddings. “In April 2008, the New Mexico Human Rights Commission ruled in Ms. Willock’s (lesbian) favor holding that Elane Photography had indeed violated this state anti-discrimination law, and directing the business to pay over $6,600 in attorney’s fees and court costs.”

Private citizen’s rights infringed on via the government. Tyranny.

Oh I’m talking about actual Law. Law’s that can’t be on the books if they’re unconstitutional. Not sheeple law but real world, how laws work laws. Above and beyond the school house rock “I’m just a bill” song and dance.

“I am using “legal” in the sense of laws currently on the books and currently enforced.”

Right, and some of those aren’t legal per other laws. I don’t understand why is so hard to grasp that or how many ways it must be explained.

Of course *you* think marriage is a right. Can you sue someone who refuses to marry you for violating your rights?

I understand why Tom gets so frustrated arguing with Liberals.

---

Name

Mail (will not be published)

Website

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>