In article , Ned Simmons
says...

In article , says...


There's a lot of sweating going on because all this stuff
is prosecutable and Delay will be feeding the prosecution
details so he can save his own hide. All the guys he
implicates will be republicans.


Best (only?) laugh so far from the Alito hearings: In response to
Alito's testimony that his memory was not clear on some point, Lindsey
Graham R-SC quipped, "I hope you'll understand if any us come before a
court and we can't remember Abramoff, you will tend to believe us."

Googling for the exact quote turned up another unattributed crack from
the hearing. =3FAbramoff who? That=3Fs the guy in the Bible, right?=3F

Heh.

Apparently he's also got a very selective memory. He's lied (and
been caught) about a number of issues. Apparently Schumer has
produced smoking guns a couple of times to wave in his face.

I can't wait to hear what the Princton "old boy's network" stuff
will show.

My wife and I are cracking up over this, it's like the scene in
animal house where the two kids show up at the snooty frat house,
and they get sidelined into the "we don't want you mingling with
the real candidates" room. "Here have some punch."

"A wimp, and a blimp!"

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On 12 Jan 2006 05:53:43 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

Googling for the exact quote turned up another unattributed crack from
the hearing. =3FAbramoff who? That=3Fs the guy in the Bible, right?=3F

Heh.

Apparently he's also got a very selective memory. He's lied (and
been caught) about a number of issues. Apparently Schumer has
produced smoking guns a couple of times to wave in his face.

Number of times that Clinton figures who testified in court or before
Congress said that they didn't remember, didn't know, or something
similar.

Bill Kennedy 116
Harold Ickes 148
Ricki Seidman 160
Bruce Lindsey 161
Bill Burton 191
Mark Gearan 221
Mack McLarty 233
Neil Egglseston 250
Hillary Clinton 250
John Podesta 264
Jennifer O'Connor 343
Dwight Holton 348
Patsy Thomasson 420
Jeff Eller 697

FROM THE WASHINGTON TIMES: In the portions of President Clinton's Jan.
17 deposition that have been made public in the Paula Jones case, his
memory failed him 267 times. This is a list of his answers and how
many times he gave each one.

I don't remember - 71
I don't know - 62
I'm not sure - 17
I have no idea - 10
I don't believe so - 9
I don't recall - 8
I don't think so - 8
I don't have any specific recollection - 6
I have no recollection - 4
Not to my knowledge - 4
I just don't remember - 4
I don't believe - 4
I have no specific recollection - 3
I might have - 3
I don't have any recollection of that - 2 I don't have a specific
memory - 2
I don't have any memory of that - 2
I just can't say - 2
I have no direct knowledge of that - 2
I don't have any idea - 2
Not that I recall - 2
I don't believe I did - 2
I can't remember - 2
I can't say - 2
I do not remember doing so - 2
Not that I remember - 2
I'm not aware - 1
I honestly don't know - 1
I don't believe that I did - 1
I'm fairly sure - 1
I have no other recollection - 1
I'm not positive - 1
I certainly don't think so - 1
I don't really remember - 1
I would have no way of remembering that - 1
That's what I believe happened - 1
To my knowledge, no - 1
To the best of my knowledge - 1
To the best of my memory - 1
I honestly don't recall - 1
I honestly don't remember - 1
That's all I know - 1
I don't have an independent recollection of that - 1
I don't actually have an independent memory of that - 1
As far as I know - 1
I don't believe I ever did that - 1
That's all I know about that - 1
I'm just not sure - 1
Nothing that I remember - 1
I simply don't know - 1
I would have no idea - 1
I don't know anything about that - 1
I don't have any direct knowledge of that - 1
I just don't know - 1
I really don't know - 1
I can't deny that, I just -- I have no memory of that at all - 1



your outrage is noted.
Snicker.......


Gunner

The aim of untold millions is to be free to do exactly as they choose
and for someone else to pay when things go wrong.

In the past few decades, a peculiar and distinctive psychology
has emerged in England. Gone are the civility, sturdy independence,
and admirable stoicism that carried the English through the war years
.. It has been replaced by a constant whine of excuses, complaints,
and special pleading. The collapse of the British character has been
as swift and complete as the collapse of British power.

Theodore Dalrymple,

In article , Gunner says...

Number of times that Clinton figures who testified in court

Ah, but they're not *in* court right now. It's the other
folks whos feet are in the fire at the moment.

So we'll leave the teapot dome scandle behind, for the moment.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On 14 Jan 2006 09:09:01 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

Number of times that Clinton figures who testified in court

Ah, but they're not *in* court right now. It's the other
folks whos feet are in the fire at the moment.

So we'll leave the teapot dome scandle behind, for the moment.

Jim

But Jim...where was your angst then? Your outrage?

Snicker...the only thing a Democrat thinks is legal or
Constitutional..is whatever a Dem wants to do.

The only thing a a Dem thinks a Republican does, that is legal or
Constitutional, is die, or change parties.

Gunner

The aim of untold millions is to be free to do exactly as they choose
and for someone else to pay when things go wrong.

In the past few decades, a peculiar and distinctive psychology
has emerged in England. Gone are the civility, sturdy independence,
and admirable stoicism that carried the English through the war years
.. It has been replaced by a constant whine of excuses, complaints,
and special pleading. The collapse of the British character has been
as swift and complete as the collapse of British power.

Theodore Dalrymple,

In article , Gunner says...

So we'll leave the teapot dome scandle behind, for the moment.

But Jim...where was your angst then? Your outrage?

I hadn't been born yet actually.

Gunner, give up my friend. This is a purely republican
financial scandal and it will stay so, no matter how
much foot stamping and presidigitation the righties
employ.

I'm not pleased with *any* crooks in our government and
that absolutely includes crooks of whatever flavor. The
problem is that right now our present republican-dominated
government is shot full of crooks.

Do not expect me to ingest that situation without squawking
about it. I do not care about last years crooks, nor do
I care about next years crooks.

The crooks we have in office right now are plenty enough
to worry about, thank you much.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On 14 Jan 2006 15:40:12 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

So we'll leave the teapot dome scandle behind, for the moment.

But Jim...where was your angst then? Your outrage?

I hadn't been born yet actually.

Gunner, give up my friend. This is a purely republican
financial scandal and it will stay so, no matter how
much foot stamping and presidigitation the righties
employ.

I'm not pleased with *any* crooks in our government and
that absolutely includes crooks of whatever flavor. The
problem is that right now our present republican-dominated
government is shot full of crooks.

Do not expect me to ingest that situation without squawking
about it. I do not care about last years crooks, nor do
I care about next years crooks.

The crooks we have in office right now are plenty enough
to worry about, thank you much.

Jim

However..your blatent hypocrisy is what I enjoy pointing out. You
only worry about Republican crooks as was witnessed by your stone
silence on the subject during the 8 yrs of the Clinton
Administration..which dispite the claims of Being The Most Ethical
Administration In History..was riddled with corrupton, murder, rape,
drug dealing and usage and bribery.

Hence..I will continue to hold your feet to the fire, the instant you
blather on about Evil Republicans..yet give a pass to Evil Democrats.

Gunner

The aim of untold millions is to be free to do exactly as they choose
and for someone else to pay when things go wrong.

In the past few decades, a peculiar and distinctive psychology
has emerged in England. Gone are the civility, sturdy independence,
and admirable stoicism that carried the English through the war years
.. It has been replaced by a constant whine of excuses, complaints,
and special pleading. The collapse of the British character has been
as swift and complete as the collapse of British power.

Theodore Dalrymple,

You take one lousy week off to join Thorax at the Elvis concert, and this
is what happens: Gunner writes on Sat, 14 Jan 2006
18:13:15 GMT in rec.crafts.metalworking :
On 14 Jan 2006 09:09:01 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

Number of times that Clinton figures who testified in court

Ah, but they're not *in* court right now. It's the other
folks whos feet are in the fire at the moment.

So we'll leave the teapot dome scandle behind, for the moment.

Jim

But Jim...where was your angst then? Your outrage?

Snicker...the only thing a Democrat thinks is legal or
Constitutional..is whatever a Dem wants to do.

Jim hasn't been able to handle the fact that it was the Liberals and
Democrats who pushed for a Living Constitution interpretation, so now that
such is a dominant paradigm (while the Democrats are no longer the dominant
party), he feels that something must be wrong with the idea, but he can't
figure out what.


--
pyotr filipivich
Can you trust the party of Senator Holling, Bull Conner, and Nathan
Bedford Forest to really be concerned about the rights of people not like them?

In article , Gunner says...

The crooks we have in office right now are plenty enough
to worry about, thank you much.
....
Hence..I will continue to hold your feet to the fire,

Why mine? Why not save some of your ire for the crooks?

Some of them are even in your own state, no less.

Like that fighter pilot guy. I understand he was
actually wearing a wire after he cut his deal, for
some time.

Don't you *care* that your taxes are being used to fund
the most corrupt govenment in US history?

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

In article , pyotr filipivich
says...

Jim hasn't been able to handle the fact that it was the Liberals and
Democrats who pushed for a Living Constitution

Unfortunately anyone who posts on rcm understands my personal
feelings on the bill of rights.

Could we please have a show of hands about which posters
think that I view the bill of rights as expendable?

Even gunner can weigh in on this one, and yes, he can include
the second as well.

In the meantime I'll just keep on reading in the news about
the next big republican scandal. Ney, Delay, Frist, damn
I think I'm gonna have to make a scorecard to remember who's
being indicted for what.

Good thing we've got lots of bars and lots of walls for them!

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

jim rozen wrote:
In article , Gunner
says...

Don't you *care* that your taxes are being used to fund
the most corrupt govenment in US history?


His WHAT???
LOL.

--
John R. Carroll
Machining Solution Software, Inc.
Los Angeles San Francisco
www.machiningsolution.com

In article , John R. Carroll
says...

Don't you *care* that your taxes are being used to fund
the most corrupt govenment in US history?


His WHAT???
LOL.

g

I'm sure even gunner pays some into the coffers. The
way the present adminstration is shifting the burden down
away from the rich, he's gonna get caught.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 04:39:25 GMT, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

You take one lousy week off to join Thorax at the Elvis concert, and this
is what happens: Gunner writes on Sat, 14 Jan 2006
18:13:15 GMT in rec.crafts.metalworking :
On 14 Jan 2006 09:09:01 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

Number of times that Clinton figures who testified in court

Ah, but they're not *in* court right now. It's the other
folks whos feet are in the fire at the moment.

So we'll leave the teapot dome scandle behind, for the moment.

Jim

But Jim...where was your angst then? Your outrage?

Snicker...the only thing a Democrat thinks is legal or
Constitutional..is whatever a Dem wants to do.

Jim hasn't been able to handle the fact that it was the Liberals and
Democrats who pushed for a Living Constitution interpretation, so now that
such is a dominant paradigm (while the Democrats are no longer the dominant
party), he feels that something must be wrong with the idea, but he can't
figure out what.


"During one of the 2000 presidential debates, Al Gore said that he
would appoint justices "who understand that our Constitution is a
living, breathing document." He suggested "it was intended by our
founders to be interpreted in the light of the constantly evolving
experience of the American people."

How ironic: Appealing to the Founding Fathers in order to rationalize
a complete disregard for their intent in framing the Constitution. A
written constitution that can be interpreted to mean the opposite of
what those who drafted it intended is no constitution at all. The idea
that the Constitution means whatever some branch of government says it
means is inimical to the rule of law. Law, especially constitutional
law, must bind the government as well as the governed."


"The living Constitution" is a phrase used mostly (though not
entirely) by Liberals in American legal debate. As characterized by
Liberals, the living Constitution is a Constitution whose boundaries
and provisions are dynamic and amorphous, congruent with whatever the
needs of society (or, critics complain, the desires of a judge) may be
at a particular moment, rather than possessing a fixed and definitive
meaning."


Which is a marvelous idea. Buy a house with a Living Contract..subject
to change by the seller at any time, on a whim, or by interpetation of
the sellers lawyer.

Gunner

The aim of untold millions is to be free to do exactly as they choose
and for someone else to pay when things go wrong.

In the past few decades, a peculiar and distinctive psychology
has emerged in England. Gone are the civility, sturdy independence,
and admirable stoicism that carried the English through the war years
.. It has been replaced by a constant whine of excuses, complaints,
and special pleading. The collapse of the British character has been
as swift and complete as the collapse of British power.

Theodore Dalrymple,

In article . com, Gus says...


wrote:
Say I set up a education account for my grandson and contributed as
much as the law allows. And then I gave you a bunch of money with the
understanding that you would contribute an equal amount to my grandsons
education account. Is that illegal?

Yes that is illegal if you're talking about conservatives

Dan is a fiscal conservative. I would say that puts him in
a different class than our present federal government of
course. And doing that is legal, because he's not a polician.
The rules about campaign contributions are different you see.

You probably even already knew that gus.

Dan's not a politician. Only *one* reason I respect him.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

"Gunner" wrote in message
...

"The living Constitution" is a phrase used mostly (though not
entirely) by Liberals in American legal debate. As characterized by
Liberals, the living Constitution is a Constitution whose boundaries
and provisions are dynamic and amorphous, congruent with whatever the
needs of society (or, critics complain, the desires of a judge) may be
at a particular moment, rather than possessing a fixed and definitive
meaning."

Hmmm...Who is it you're quoting there, Gunner? It wouldn't be Wikipedia,
would it? Because that isn't what they said. What they actually said is
this:

"'The living Constitution' is a phrase used mostly (though not entirely) by
originalists and conservatives in American legal debate. As characterized by
originalists, the living Constitution is a Constitution whose boundaries and
provisions are dynamic and amorphous, congruent with whatever the needs of
society (or, critics complain, the desires of a judge) may be at a
particular moment, rather than possessing a fixed and definitive meaning."

What have you been doing, taking lessons from James Frey? d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

In article , Ed Huntress says...

What have you been doing, taking lessons from James Frey? d8-)

Or, was it mary roush?

g

Oh, that was a different literary scammer.

Besides Ed, just ask frey's publisher. Their take on it
is, well it doesn't matter that he was a liar and made
most of the stuff up for his book, and labeled it "non-fiction."

Given the republicans' shenanigans lately in this country,
the line between fiction and non-fiction is getting pretty
darn thin. I think they just don't care any more.
It's the worst case of moral relativism we've seen in
a long time. How I long for a president with *real* moral
values, who really stood for something. Carter, for example.

You really knew how he stood about those playboy magazines.

g

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 15:41:29 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
...

"The living Constitution" is a phrase used mostly (though not
entirely) by Liberals in American legal debate. As characterized by
Liberals, the living Constitution is a Constitution whose boundaries
and provisions are dynamic and amorphous, congruent with whatever the
needs of society (or, critics complain, the desires of a judge) may be
at a particular moment, rather than possessing a fixed and definitive
meaning."

Hmmm...Who is it you're quoting there, Gunner? It wouldn't be Wikipedia,
would it? Because that isn't what they said. What they actually said is
this:

"'The living Constitution' is a phrase used mostly (though not entirely) by
originalists and conservatives in American legal debate. As characterized by
originalists, the living Constitution is a Constitution whose boundaries and
provisions are dynamic and amorphous, congruent with whatever the needs of
society (or, critics complain, the desires of a judge) may be at a
particular moment, rather than possessing a fixed and definitive meaning."

What have you been doing, taking lessons from James Frey? d8-)

Ed, you gotta quit doing this. I laughed so hard I spit coffee all over
the keyboard.
Can you say "BUSTED"?

"Rastus" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 15:41:29 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
...

"The living Constitution" is a phrase used mostly (though not
entirely) by Liberals in American legal debate. As characterized by
Liberals, the living Constitution is a Constitution whose boundaries
and provisions are dynamic and amorphous, congruent with whatever the
needs of society (or, critics complain, the desires of a judge) may be
at a particular moment, rather than possessing a fixed and definitive
meaning."

Hmmm...Who is it you're quoting there, Gunner? It wouldn't be Wikipedia,
would it? Because that isn't what they said. What they actually said is
this:

"'The living Constitution' is a phrase used mostly (though not entirely)
by
originalists and conservatives in American legal debate. As
characterized by
originalists, the living Constitution is a Constitution whose boundaries
and
provisions are dynamic and amorphous, congruent with whatever the needs
of
society (or, critics complain, the desires of a judge) may be at a
particular moment, rather than possessing a fixed and definitive
meaning."

What have you been doing, taking lessons from James Frey? d8-)

Ed, you gotta quit doing this. I laughed so hard I spit coffee all over
the keyboard.
Can you say "BUSTED"?

We could, but it's would be redundant.

--
Ed Huntress

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Ed Huntress says...

What have you been doing, taking lessons from James Frey? d8-)

Or, was it mary roush?

g

Oh, that was a different literary scammer.

Besides Ed, just ask frey's publisher. Their take on it
is, well it doesn't matter that he was a liar and made
most of the stuff up for his book, and labeled it "non-fiction."

Given the republicans' shenanigans lately in this country,
the line between fiction and non-fiction is getting pretty
darn thin. I think they just don't care any more.

It's probably just that Gunner is practicing to be a right-wing blogger.
After years of being a mere tile on the wall of the Great Right-Wing Echo
Chamber, he wants to be a content-provider in the Great Right-Wing ****
Storm (to borrow a phrase from Thomas Frank in the Feb. '06 issue of
_Harper's_).

First, you have to learn to twist the facts around until their little heads
snap off...then you glue them back on again, only backwards...

--
Ed Huntress

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...

Given the republicans' shenanigans lately in this country,
the line between fiction and non-fiction is getting pretty
darn thin...

Yo, Jim, did you see the NYT today? Ding, ding...the gloves have come off.
Take a look at the editorial, "The Imperial Presidency At Work."

Also, an AP story that Bob Ney is ceding his chairmanship of the House
Administration Committee. And Arlan Specter brought up the subject of
impeachment, only to say that "I don't see any talk about impeachment here,"
which is a subject strange beyond belief for a Republican Senator to bring
up during a Republican administration.

Things must be getting hot on the Hill. This coming week may be interesting.

--
Ed Huntress

In article , Ed Huntress says...

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...

Given the republicans' shenanigans lately in this country,
the line between fiction and non-fiction is getting pretty
darn thin...

Yo, Jim, did you see the NYT today? Ding, ding...the gloves have come off.
Take a look at the editorial, "The Imperial Presidency At Work."

Also the cartoon about frey's book. "Some of the pieces are in
'fiction,' some of them are in 'non-fiction...'"

Also, an AP story that Bob Ney is ceding his chairmanship of the House
Administration Committee. And Arlan Specter brought up the subject of
impeachment, only to say that "I don't see any talk about impeachment here,"
which is a subject strange beyond belief for a Republican Senator to bring
up during a Republican administration.

Things must be getting hot on the Hill. This coming week may be interesting.

Yeah, Ney's in trouble. There's talk of Blount taking Delay's job.
That might continue until *he* gets indicted.

There may well be a lot of trials going on at once. Lay, Delay, Skilling,
Abranoff, etc.

Apparently McClellan's worst nightmare may come true: the shrubster's
"Pioneer," mr. Abramoff, may wind up in a photo with the president.
That may well top the blue dress event.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On 15 Jan 2006 07:08:02 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

The crooks we have in office right now are plenty enough
to worry about, thank you much.
...
Hence..I will continue to hold your feet to the fire,

Why mine? Why not save some of your ire for the crooks?

Oh but I do! However..they dont post here. Do they?

Some of them are even in your own state, no less.

Like that fighter pilot guy. I understand he was
actually wearing a wire after he cut his deal, for
some time.

Don't you *care* that your taxes are being used to fund
the most corrupt govenment in US history?

Jim

Yep..and I was quite vocal about how evil the Clintons were, as well
as Tammany Hall and so forth.

I should note Jim..that your grasp of corruption in the government in
the US is woefully short. I suggest you read a bit more history..try
google..before you spew about which administration is the Most Corrupt
In US History.

Your pontification only makes you look utterly ignorant..and
frankly..a fool.

Gunner

The aim of untold millions is to be free to do exactly as they choose
and for someone else to pay when things go wrong.

In the past few decades, a peculiar and distinctive psychology
has emerged in England. Gone are the civility, sturdy independence,
and admirable stoicism that carried the English through the war years
.. It has been replaced by a constant whine of excuses, complaints,
and special pleading. The collapse of the British character has been
as swift and complete as the collapse of British power.

Theodore Dalrymple,

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 15:41:29 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .

"The living Constitution" is a phrase used mostly (though not
entirely) by Liberals in American legal debate. As characterized by
Liberals, the living Constitution is a Constitution whose boundaries
and provisions are dynamic and amorphous, congruent with whatever the
needs of society (or, critics complain, the desires of a judge) may be
at a particular moment, rather than possessing a fixed and definitive
meaning."

Hmmm...Who is it you're quoting there, Gunner? It wouldn't be Wikipedia,
would it? Because that isn't what they said. What they actually said is
this:

"'The living Constitution' is a phrase used mostly (though not entirely) by
originalists and conservatives in American legal debate. As characterized by
originalists, the living Constitution is a Constitution whose boundaries and
provisions are dynamic and amorphous, congruent with whatever the needs of
society (or, critics complain, the desires of a judge) may be at a
particular moment, rather than possessing a fixed and definitive meaning."

What have you been doing, taking lessons from James Frey? d8-)

No..Im quoting me. The Wiki was patently false (and is often so) so I
fixed it about 8 months ago

Gunner

The aim of untold millions is to be free to do exactly as they choose
and for someone else to pay when things go wrong.

In the past few decades, a peculiar and distinctive psychology
has emerged in England. Gone are the civility, sturdy independence,
and admirable stoicism that carried the English through the war years
.. It has been replaced by a constant whine of excuses, complaints,
and special pleading. The collapse of the British character has been
as swift and complete as the collapse of British power.

Theodore Dalrymple,

On 15 Jan 2006 12:59:12 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Ed Huntress says...

What have you been doing, taking lessons from James Frey? d8-)

Or, was it mary roush?

g

Oh, that was a different literary scammer.

Besides Ed, just ask frey's publisher. Their take on it
is, well it doesn't matter that he was a liar and made
most of the stuff up for his book, and labeled it "non-fiction."


Sure you arent talking about Michael Bellesiles?

chortle

Gunner

The aim of untold millions is to be free to do exactly as they choose
and for someone else to pay when things go wrong.

In the past few decades, a peculiar and distinctive psychology
has emerged in England. Gone are the civility, sturdy independence,
and admirable stoicism that carried the English through the war years
.. It has been replaced by a constant whine of excuses, complaints,
and special pleading. The collapse of the British character has been
as swift and complete as the collapse of British power.

Theodore Dalrymple,

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 19:17:21 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Ed Huntress says...

What have you been doing, taking lessons from James Frey? d8-)

Or, was it mary roush?

g

Oh, that was a different literary scammer.

Besides Ed, just ask frey's publisher. Their take on it
is, well it doesn't matter that he was a liar and made
most of the stuff up for his book, and labeled it "non-fiction."

Given the republicans' shenanigans lately in this country,
the line between fiction and non-fiction is getting pretty
darn thin. I think they just don't care any more.

It's probably just that Gunner is practicing to be a right-wing blogger.
After years of being a mere tile on the wall of the Great Right-Wing Echo
Chamber, he wants to be a content-provider in the Great Right-Wing ****
Storm (to borrow a phrase from Thomas Frank in the Feb. '06 issue of
_Harper's_).

First, you have to learn to twist the facts around until their little heads
snap off...then you glue them back on again, only backwards...


Page 127 of the DNC playbook

Gunner

The aim of untold millions is to be free to do exactly as they choose
and for someone else to pay when things go wrong.

In the past few decades, a peculiar and distinctive psychology
has emerged in England. Gone are the civility, sturdy independence,
and admirable stoicism that carried the English through the war years
.. It has been replaced by a constant whine of excuses, complaints,
and special pleading. The collapse of the British character has been
as swift and complete as the collapse of British power.

Theodore Dalrymple,

"Gunner" wrote in message
...

Hmmm...Who is it you're quoting there, Gunner? It wouldn't be Wikipedia,
would it? Because that isn't what they said. What they actually said is
this: snip

No..Im quoting me. The Wiki was patently false (and is often so) so I
fixed it about 8 months ago

Gunner

Well, two points. First, you didn't write that quote, so don't claim it as
your own. You took someone else's explanation and just substituted a few of
your own words -- inverting the meaning, at that -- without acknowledging
your source.

Second, take a look at who is using the phrase "living Constitution," over
and over again, right here, as well as everywhere on the Web. It's the right
wingers.

It appears the Wikipedia version was right on the mark, and that you're
engaging in misinformation...again.

Imagine that. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

In article , Ed Huntress says...

Well, two points. First, you didn't write that quote, so don't claim it as
your own.

Just another in a long string of republican relativisms.

Hey if the president can break the law, why *can't* gunner
just plagarize to his heart's content?

Heck Ed, everyone's doin it nowadays.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 05:25:20 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .

Hmmm...Who is it you're quoting there, Gunner? It wouldn't be Wikipedia,
would it? Because that isn't what they said. What they actually said is
this: snip

No..Im quoting me. The Wiki was patently false (and is often so) so I
fixed it about 8 months ago

Gunner

Well, two points. First, you didn't write that quote, so don't claim it as
your own. You took someone else's explanation and just substituted a few of
your own words -- inverting the meaning, at that -- without acknowledging
your source.

Second, take a look at who is using the phrase "living Constitution," over
and over again, right here, as well as everywhere on the Web. It's the right
wingers.

It appears the Wikipedia version was right on the mark, and that you're
engaging in misinformation...again.

Imagine that. d8-)


You missed the Algor quote?

Imagine that. D8-)

Gunner

The aim of untold millions is to be free to do exactly as they choose
and for someone else to pay when things go wrong.

In the past few decades, a peculiar and distinctive psychology
has emerged in England. Gone are the civility, sturdy independence,
and admirable stoicism that carried the English through the war years
.. It has been replaced by a constant whine of excuses, complaints,
and special pleading. The collapse of the British character has been
as swift and complete as the collapse of British power.

Theodore Dalrymple,

On 16 Jan 2006 13:02:14 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Ed Huntress says...

Well, two points. First, you didn't write that quote, so don't claim it as
your own.

Just another in a long string of republican relativisms.

Hey if the president can break the law, why *can't* gunner
just plagarize to his heart's content?

Heck Ed, everyone's doin it nowadays.

Jim

Including Joe Biden? Shierrod Brown? Jason Blair?

Btw..whats Dan Rather up to these days?



“The Constitution ought to be interpreted as a document that grows.”
“I believe the Constitution is a living and breathing document. . . .
We have interpreted our founding charter over the years, and found
deeper meanings in it in light of the subsequent experience in
American life.” Al Gore

The Rights use of the term Living Document is a direct result of
Gore's statement. Its a good description of the attempts the Left has
made..and the explainations they use when they try to make end runs
around it. And their rational for judicial activism.

http://www.nationalreview.com/goldbe...0403031145.asp

http://www.uhuh.com/constitution/endurco.htm


Seeing Constitution as enduring, not living



It's fashionable these days for folks to describe the U.S.
Constitution as a "living document."

Yup -- "living," as in something that breathes. Being written more
than 200 years ago by a bunch of men who could never have imagined the
incredible social and technological changes in America today, it's
reasonable to postulate that the Constitution would have to change in
order to stay viable and applicable in a modern world. Right?

Wrong, says Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

The "living document" concept drives him up the proverbial marble
wall. And although he concedes that it would be hard to persuade
Americans to accept the notion of a "dead Constitution," he prefers to
think of it as an enduring Constitution.

Scalia, who was in town Wednesday to kick off the Eldon B. Mahon
Lecture Series for the Texas Wesleyan University School of Law, calls
himself an "originalist" when it comes to interpreting the
211-year-old document. That means when he is deciding the
constitutionality of a legal case that has come before the nation's
highest court, he looks to what was allowed or what was forbidden when
the Founding Fathers drafted the document.

"The Constitution does not change in its meaning," Scalia said. "What
it approved back in 1789, or 1791 if talking about the Bill of Rights,
it approves of now. What it forbad then, it forbids now."

It wasn't a perfect document from Day 1. It did things like withhold
the right to vote based on one's gender, race, property ownership and
literacy. That's why the framers also wrote in an amendment process.
Through it, we got advances like the 19th Amendment, which guaranteed
women the right to vote.

But consider: In 211 years, it has only been amended 27 times, and 10
of those came in one fell swoop. They came darn close to getting it
right from the start.

Scalia readily admits that his originalist thinking is on a plane
different from that of most of the lawyers and judges you'll find in
America today.

"You can fire a cannon loaded with grapeshot in the faculty lounge of
any major law school in the country and not strike an originalist,"
Scalia told the audience at the Bass Performance Hall. And that
troubles the justice, who was a 1986 Reagan appointee to the court. He
received unanimous confirmation from the Senate -- something this
country may never see again, considering how justices these days are
selected not on their constitutional acumen but on whether their
philosophies match the prevailing party's beliefs.

The notion that the Constitution is not static, that it changes with
time, is actually embedded in language that the court used in an
Eighth Amendment decision about cruel and unusual punishment. The
Constitution, the judges decided, changes to "comport with evolving
standards of decency that reflect a maturing society."

As Scalia quipped, "How come societies only mature -- they never rot?"

Enough evidence exists to argue that this one is rotting, and one of
the reasons may be because too many people have decided that the
underlying bedrock of our nation can mean whatever the prevailing
philosophers -- translation: politicians and judges -- of the day want
it to mean.

The Constitution outlines the rights of the people and the
restrictions on the federal government that have never changed. Those
issues not specifically detailed in the document are left to the
people to decide through their duly elected representatives, and not
by declaration by a panel of judges or the executive branch.

The framers designed a representative republic and not a system of
popular referendum for a reason. It protects the least of us from the
most of us.

But Scalia worries that as a nation we're straying far afield from
what the visionary Founding Fathers had in mind: "A Bill of Rights
that means what the majority wants it to mean is worthless."


The aim of untold millions is to be free to do exactly as they choose
and for someone else to pay when things go wrong.

In the past few decades, a peculiar and distinctive psychology
has emerged in England. Gone are the civility, sturdy independence,
and admirable stoicism that carried the English through the war years
.. It has been replaced by a constant whine of excuses, complaints,
and special pleading. The collapse of the British character has been
as swift and complete as the collapse of British power.

Theodore Dalrymple,

In article , Gunner says...

Heck Ed, everyone's doin it nowadays.

Jim

Including Joe Biden? Shierrod Brown? Jason Blair?

Btw..whats Dan Rather up to these days?

spew snip

Now gunner why the spew? I was standing up
for your right to employ, shall we say, a
certain lax ethical approach to plagarism.

Ethics in our current adminstration being
what they are right now, I think that anyone
who isn't actually convicted and serving time
right now should be considered as having
angle wings, right? g

What a change from Ed Meese a few years makes, huh?

Of course that doesn't count for folks who plead
guilty. And rat out their republican associates.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On 17 Jan 2006 04:59:47 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

Heck Ed, everyone's doin it nowadays.

Jim

Including Joe Biden? Shierrod Brown? Jason Blair?

Btw..whats Dan Rather up to these days?

spew snip

Now gunner why the spew? I was standing up
for your right to employ, shall we say, a
certain lax ethical approach to plagarism.

Ethics in our current adminstration being
what they are right now, I think that anyone
who isn't actually convicted and serving time
right now should be considered as having
angle wings, right? g

What a change from Ed Meese a few years makes, huh?

Of course that doesn't count for folks who plead
guilty. And rat out their republican associates.

Jim

Again..your silence of Democrat corruption, but shrill whiney voice
when Republicans **** up...is noted

G

Gunner

"Deep in her heart, every moslem woman yearns to show us her tits"
John Griffin

In article , Gunner says...

Of course that doesn't count for folks who plead
guilty. And rat out their republican associates.

Again..your silence of Democrat corruption, but shrill whiney voice
when Republicans **** up...is noted

I'd have a shrill whiney voice too, if my buddies were
ratting me out. Expect to hear a lot more of that in
the near future....

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

Here are a few of he bunch that wish it were the facts: Google book search.

The American Constitution and the Debate Over Originalism
by Dennis J Goldford - Law - 2005 - 318 pages
Page 69 - These skeptics forget that the living Constitution has protected American ...
Charles A. Reich, “The Living Constitution and the Court's Role,” in Stephen ...
[ More results from this book ]



A Practical Companion to the Constitution
by Jethro K Lieberman - Law - 1999 - 792 pages
Page 118 - “Whatever the Court has said,” the noted constitutional analyst Karl N.
Llewellyn wrote more than a half century ago, “it has shaped the living Constitution ...
[ More results from this book ]



Rights From Wrongs: A Secular Theory of the Origin of Rights
by Alan M Dershowitz - 2004 - 208 pages
Page 229 - 6 Justice Scalia too seems to have recognized the two-way nature of the living
constitution even before the recent terrorism cases: “One may reasonably ...
[ More results from this book ]



Foundations of Legal Research and Writing
by Carol M Bast, Margie A Hawkins - Law - 2001 - 550 pages
Page 152 - The living constitution would include those pages and all case law interpretations
.... If printed, the living constitution would require numerous volumes. ...
[ More results from this book ]



Is the Supreme Court the Guardian of the Constitution?
by Licht - 1993
Page 45 - I know of no one who has put this better than Fred Baumann of Kenyon College:
WALTER BERNS The problem created by the doctrine of the living Constitution ...
[ More results from this book ]



Nomination of Justice William Hubbs Rehnquist: Hearings Before the Committee on the Judiciary,...
by United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary - 1987 - 1165 pages
Page 717 - ... has been articulated in his article, The Living Constitution.** HI. THE LIVING
CONSTITUTION In The Living Constitution, Rehnquist quotes Abraham Lin- ...



Slavery and Its Consequences
by Goldwin - Law - 1988
Page 1 - 1 Slavery, the Framers, and the Living Constitution Don E. Fehrenbacher “The
Constitution of the United States recognizes, without limitation, ...
[ More results from this book ]



Representing Popular Sovereignty: The Constitution in American Political Culture
by Daniel Lessard Levin - 1999 - 283 pages
Page 99 - The concept of the living constitution is an import from a nation without a
written constitution. The British Constitution “lives” because it is an amalgam ...
[ More results from this book ]



Anderson's Business Law and the Legal Environment
by David P Twomey - Business & Economics - 2004 - 1308 pages
Page 67 - The Living Constitution The Constitution that has developed in the manner described
in the ... The living Constitution has the following characteristics. ...
[ More results from this book ]



First Among Equals: The Supreme Court in American Life
by Kenneth W. Starr - Law - 2003 - 352 pages
Page 25 - The living-Constitution school of judging is a very exciting one, Scalia observes,
for under that school's philosophy, judges enjoy substantial latitude in ...
[ More results from this book ]



Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law
by Antonin Scalia - Law - 1998 - 176 pages
Page 46 - Under The Living Constitution the death penalty may have become unconstitutional.
And it is up to each Justice to decide for himself (under no standard I ...
[ More results from this book ]



Scalia Dissents: Writings of the Supreme Court's Wittiest, Most Outspoken Justice
by Kevin A Ring, Antonin Scalia - 2004 - 256 pages
Page 7 - 4 Though not to the degree it conflicts with the living Constitution theory,
Scalia's approach also differs from a couple of modes of interpretation that ...
[ More results from this book ]



Legal Fees Equity Act: Hearings Before the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee...
by United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary. Subcommittee on the Constitution - 1986 - 522 pages
Page 91 - The courts, in turn, have defined the contours of the living constitution largely
according to suggestions made by the ACLU and its sister organizations. ...



The Rehnquist Court and the Constitution
by Tinsley E Yarbrough - 2001 - 320 pages
Page 45 - ... text” and declaring that he, like Bork, did “not believe in the living
Constitution, this document that morphs from generation to generation. ...
[ More results from this book ]



The Age of Rights
by Louis Henkin - Political Science - 1996 - 224 pages
Page 159 - The living Constitution has helped bring rights to those who had had none, has
expanded old rights and effectively brought new ones. ...
[ More results from this book ]



A Coup Attempt in Washington?: A European Mirror on the 1998-1999 Constitutional Crisis
by Peter Merkl - Political Science - 2001 - 288 pages
Page 351 - The death of the living Constitution, however, would be a catastrophe of unimaginable
proportions, not only for this country but for all our friends and ...
[ More results from this book ]



The Language of Liberty: The Political Speeches and Writings of Abraham Lincoln
by Joseph Fornieri - History - 2004 - 824 pages
Page xxii - ... with the. . . notion of the living Constitution is that it seems to ignore
totally the nature of political value judgments in a democratic society. ...
[ More results from this book ]



Dearborn Independent Magazine October 1925-December 1926
by Henry Ford - Political Science - 2003 - 580 pages
Page - ... The village smithy stands, The smith, a mighty man is he, With large and sinewy
hands; And the muscles of his brawny arms Are strong as iron bands. ...
[ More results from this book ]



New York Politics: A Tale of Two States
by Edward V Schneier, Brian Murtaugh - Political Science - 2001 - 437 pages
Page 185 - THE LIVING CONSTITUTION 185 Constitutional Conventions The constitutional
requirement that the question of whether to call a constitutional convention be ...
[ More results from this book ]



The Essentials of the American Constitution: The Supreme Court and the Fundamental Law
by Charles H Sheldon - Law - 2001 - 196 pages
Page ix - In addition, long-standing practice by Congress and the president and the Supreme
Court's rulings have also become embedded in “the living Constitution. ...
[ More results from this book ]


Result Page:

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Next

Firt page on the hit. Google knows all.

Martin
Martin Eastburn
@ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net
NRA LOH & Endowment Member
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder



Gunner wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 04:39:25 GMT, pyotr filipivich
wrote:


You take one lousy week off to join Thorax at the Elvis concert, and this
is what happens: Gunner writes on Sat, 14 Jan 2006
18:13:15 GMT in rec.crafts.metalworking :

On 14 Jan 2006 09:09:01 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:


In article , Gunner says...


Number of times that Clinton figures who testified in court

Ah, but they're not *in* court right now. It's the other
folks whos feet are in the fire at the moment.

So we'll leave the teapot dome scandle behind, for the moment.

Jim

But Jim...where was your angst then? Your outrage?

Snicker...the only thing a Democrat thinks is legal or
Constitutional..is whatever a Dem wants to do.

Jim hasn't been able to handle the fact that it was the Liberals and
Democrats who pushed for a Living Constitution interpretation, so now that
such is a dominant paradigm (while the Democrats are no longer the dominant
party), he feels that something must be wrong with the idea, but he can't
figure out what.



"During one of the 2000 presidential debates, Al Gore said that he
would appoint justices "who understand that our Constitution is a
living, breathing document." He suggested "it was intended by our
founders to be interpreted in the light of the constantly evolving
experience of the American people."

How ironic: Appealing to the Founding Fathers in order to rationalize
a complete disregard for their intent in framing the Constitution. A
written constitution that can be interpreted to mean the opposite of
what those who drafted it intended is no constitution at all. The idea
that the Constitution means whatever some branch of government says it
means is inimical to the rule of law. Law, especially constitutional
law, must bind the government as well as the governed."


"The living Constitution" is a phrase used mostly (though not
entirely) by Liberals in American legal debate. As characterized by
Liberals, the living Constitution is a Constitution whose boundaries
and provisions are dynamic and amorphous, congruent with whatever the
needs of society (or, critics complain, the desires of a judge) may be
at a particular moment, rather than possessing a fixed and definitive
meaning."


Which is a marvelous idea. Buy a house with a Living Contract..subject
to change by the seller at any time, on a whim, or by interpetation of
the sellers lawyer.

Gunner

The aim of untold millions is to be free to do exactly as they choose
and for someone else to pay when things go wrong.

In the past few decades, a peculiar and distinctive psychology
has emerged in England. Gone are the civility, sturdy independence,
and admirable stoicism that carried the English through the war years
. It has been replaced by a constant whine of excuses, complaints,
and special pleading. The collapse of the British character has been
as swift and complete as the collapse of British power.

Theodore Dalrymple,

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Ed Huntress wrote:
"Martin H. Eastburn" wrote in message
...
Here are a few of he bunch that wish it were the facts: Google book
search.

It isn't clear what you mean by "wish it were the facts," but putting that
aside for a moment, tell us what you think about a few issues, so we can get
an idea of how living or dead you think the Constitution is -- in other
words, just what kind of Constitutional doctrine you may apply.

1) Do you think that there is a right to privacy that Congress or the
administration can't infringe? If so, how is it defined as a right, and how
is it defended?

2) Do you believe that the First and the Second Amendments apply to the
states? Or can they establish a state religion and confiscate all guns?

3) What do you think the limits are to eminent domain? Can a state condemn
your house if they want to make more tax money on some kind of business that
would replace it? If not, why not?

4) What do you think the 9th and 10th Amendments mean?

5) What do the think is the proper interpretation of the "equal protection"
and "due process" clauses? Do they mean that the entire Bill of Rights
applies directly to the people, over the heads of the states?

Obviously, I chose these for a reason. The answers tend to leave
"originalists" wondering if that's what they really believe. But we'll be
very interested to hear your answers.

--
Ed Huntress

I don't know the answers to all those questions but it seems to me
that the "living constitution" is being used to ram through new
laws which congress and the people would never vote for. This is the
perfect system for liberals to change society into their fantasy system
without considering the will of the majority.

The right to privacy was found somewhere in the "vapors" of the
Constitution and it was used to say that it's constitutional to do away
with your unborn child. I don't believe that "right" was ever there.

If the people want that right in the constution or in other laws they
are certainly able to pass additional amendments or laws as necessary.
That's the way it was set up, not that unelected judges make new laws
with no accountability to the people.
GW

In article , Ed Huntress says...

1) Do you think that there is a right to privacy that Congress or the
administration can't infringe? If so, how is it defined as a right, and how
is it defended?

I think Felix Frankfurter had something to say about that all.
The term 'griswold v connecticut' comes to mind....

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Ed Huntress says...

1) Do you think that there is a right to privacy that Congress or the
administration can't infringe? If so, how is it defined as a right, and
how
is it defended?

I think Felix Frankfurter had something to say about that all.
The term 'griswold v connecticut' comes to mind....

Jim

We'll see if the "originalists" here recognize what a trap they're making
for themselves, if any of them will answer the questions. d8-)

You might want to look up what Thomas had to say about the right of Alabama
to establish a state religion. If that doesn't curl the toes of a
libertarian originalist, I don't know what will.

--
Ed Huntress

"Gus" wrote in message
oups.com...

Ed Huntress wrote:
"Martin H. Eastburn" wrote in message
...
Here are a few of he bunch that wish it were the facts: Google book
search.

It isn't clear what you mean by "wish it were the facts," but putting
that
aside for a moment, tell us what you think about a few issues, so we can
get
an idea of how living or dead you think the Constitution is -- in other
words, just what kind of Constitutional doctrine you may apply.

1) Do you think that there is a right to privacy that Congress or the
administration can't infringe? If so, how is it defined as a right, and
how
is it defended?

2) Do you believe that the First and the Second Amendments apply to the
states? Or can they establish a state religion and confiscate all guns?

3) What do you think the limits are to eminent domain? Can a state
condemn
your house if they want to make more tax money on some kind of business
that
would replace it? If not, why not?

4) What do you think the 9th and 10th Amendments mean?

5) What do the think is the proper interpretation of the "equal
protection"
and "due process" clauses? Do they mean that the entire Bill of Rights
applies directly to the people, over the heads of the states?

Obviously, I chose these for a reason. The answers tend to leave
"originalists" wondering if that's what they really believe. But we'll
be
very interested to hear your answers.

--
Ed Huntress

I don't know the answers to all those questions but it seems to me
that the "living constitution" is being used to ram through new
laws which congress and the people would never vote for. This is the
perfect system for liberals to change society into their fantasy system
without considering the will of the majority.

The right to privacy was found somewhere in the "vapors" of the
Constitution and it was used to say that it's constitutional to do away
with your unborn child. I don't believe that "right" was ever there.

As Jim pointed out, the "vapors" (actually, it was "penumbras and
emanations" g) derive from the case that decided we have a right to
privacy, Griswold v. Connecticut. And the right, contrary to what Roe
opponents will tell you, was precisely the right to your dominion over your
own body, not the right to privacy in your phone calls. Connecticut had
outlawed the use of contraception of any kind by married couples -- keep in
mind this was the 1960s, not the 1860s -- and the Supreme Court decided that
those married couples had a constitutional right, by way of the intent of
the founders, to privacy in such matters. Actually, they decided there was a
right because the states had no legal competancy to intrude in this area.

So, if there's no right to privacy, the states can tell you what you can do
in your own bedroom. I doubt if many people find that idea acceptable today.
So most would disagree with you about the right to privacy.

However, if you're going to hold to a constitutional doctrine that says
there is no such right, because it isn't spelled out in the Constitution,
you're going to run into a whole list of problems you've created for
yourself. Revisiting Roe v. Wade is the least of them. Are you sure you want
to support such a doctrine? Or do you maybe prefer the "living
Constitution," as long as it lives in the directions you like? d8-)


If the people want that right in the constution or in other laws they
are certainly able to pass additional amendments or laws as necessary.

Well, Connecticut had indeed passed such a law. So had many other states.
Once Connecticut's law was found unconstitutional, a whole list of similar
state laws passed into oblivion. And most of us are happy they did.

That's the way it was set up, not that unelected judges make new laws
with no accountability to the people.

Of course, this is the mantra of conservatives everywhere. Most of them,
however, haven't thought much about the consequences of originalist readings
of the Constitution. For example, such a reading of the 14th results in
things like Justice Thomas claiming that Alabama has a right to establish a
state religion. You don't even want to hear what it would do to the rest of
the First Amendment, and (shudder!) the Second Amendment.

How about the other questions, Gus? Do you have any opinions on them?

--
Ed Huntress

In article , Ed Huntress says...

So, if there's no right to privacy, the states can tell you what you can do
in your own bedroom.

What disturbs me the most is that it seems like the apologists
are not disturbed in the least by this idea.

They just don't care. Either that, or they don't fully understand
the implications of a such an imposing nanny-state.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

Ed Huntress wrote:


How about the other questions, Gus? Do you have any opinions on them?

I have a little opinion on this one:

2) Do you believe that the First and the Second Amendments apply to the
states?

I think that where the First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" what it actually means is
Congress shall make no law. It doesn't mean that some county worker
somewhere can't wear a little necklace with a cross on it. It doesn't
mean that some third grader someplace can't pass out Christmas cards to
other kids with the dreaded J-word on them. It doesn't even mean that
some judge somewhere can't have a little plaque on the wall with the 10
commandments on it.

The phrase "shall make no law respecting" means no law either for or
against. It means to stay out of it.

I think that you are bringing up some good points but the "living
constution" idea has been misused to the point where many people are
tired of the fact that lawyers and judges can turn "yes" into "no".
They can make up anything they want and that isn't how it's supposed to
be. Some have even gone so far as to mention foreign law in their
decisions. Maybe we need some term limits on judges. Why do they have
to serve until they're ready to die?

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Ed Huntress says...

So, if there's no right to privacy, the states can tell you what you can
do
in your own bedroom.

What disturbs me the most is that it seems like the apologists
are not disturbed in the least by this idea.

They just don't care. Either that, or they don't fully understand
the implications of a such an imposing nanny-state.

Jim

The basic problem is that they think originalist = conservative, and "living
Constitutionalist" = liberal. They don't, and that's the root of the
problem.

Beyond that, combine a fuzzy understanding of Supreme Court jurisprudence
and a lack of forethought about the consequences of a consistently
originalist doctrine. There is established originalist doctrine concerning
the breadth of application for the Fourteenth Amendment, for example.
Conservatives will like it on some issues (establishing religion; voting
rights) but not on others (freedom of speech; application of the Second
Amendment).

The only way they can get what they want is with a mixed doctrine or a
sophistic one (think Antonin Scalia)...or with a living Constitution. g
Constitutional doctrines do not lead consistently to either liberal or
conservative results. For example, many conservatives are livid over
Scalia's position in the Hamdi case.

Everybody wants results that they like. Adhering to an originalist or a
living-Constition doctrine won't get it for them.

--
Ed Huntress

"Gus" wrote in message
oups.com...

Ed Huntress wrote:


How about the other questions, Gus? Do you have any opinions on them?

I have a little opinion on this one:

2) Do you believe that the First and the Second Amendments apply to the
states?

I think that where the First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" what it actually means is
Congress shall make no law.

How about the states? Can they make such a law?

It doesn't mean that some county worker
somewhere can't wear a little necklace with a cross on it. It doesn't
mean that some third grader someplace can't pass out Christmas cards to
other kids with the dreaded J-word on them. It doesn't even mean that
some judge somewhere can't have a little plaque on the wall with the 10
commandments on it.

The phrase "shall make no law respecting" means no law either for or
against. It means to stay out of it.

Without getting into a big debate about it, what happened is that the Court
ran into cases in which it was clear that Christian religion was going to
chisel its way into a state of quasi-establishment if the doctrine wasn't
made more absolute and clear. There was Jefferson's "wall of separation"
letter in 1802, for example. Is was a nose-under-the-tent issue.

But you can argue that there was no original justification for such a
position; the Court and others in government just made the wall higher as
time went on. Some would argue they did so out of practical necessity, in
order to keep true to the original idea, but others would argue that they
went too far in their zeal.

I won't argue your point because it is a legitimate point of view. Likewise,
the other historical view. I would stop short of anything that looked to me
like suppression of religious expression, and the examples you gave are over
that line, IMO. In other words, I agree with what you're saying, to the
degree that you've expressed it above.


I think that you are bringing up some good points but the "living
constution" idea has been misused to the point where many people are
tired of the fact that lawyers and judges can turn "yes" into "no".
They can make up anything they want and that isn't how it's supposed to
be. Some have even gone so far as to mention foreign law in their
decisions.

All of this is true in certain cases, but the people who object to the
"living Constitution" idea usually don't think about, or maybe don't know
about, the many cases that would have produced a result they didn't like if
they had been decided on originalist grounds. The big area of problems is
with states' rights and the Fourteenth Amendment. If it wasn't for "living
Constitutionalists" expanding two particular clauses, you would definitely
NOT have a right to free speech in most states, for example. And there would
be more establishment of religion than you might care for -- at the state
level.

This is why I say to be careful of what you wish for. Originalism leans
heavily toward states' rights, based on a narrow interpretation of the
Fourteenth. I'm not arguing that their interpretation is wrong, only that
we'd have a revolution in this country if the originalists got their way.
Very few people would really like a strictly originalist Court. Even Scalia
tempers it by deferring to precedent. Thomas does not temper it.

Maybe we need some term limits on judges. Why do they have
to serve until they're ready to die?

It might not be a bad idea to set term limits.

--
Ed Huntress