U.S. Politics

Page 400 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Hugh Januss said:
When was this "Pax Americana" that you speak of? It was only about 5 or 6 years between WWII and the Korean war, then Vietnam. If we include our involvement in the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (where our funding helped to produce two new groups that were on our side, the Taliban and Al Qaeda) we can then move seamlessly right into the Gulf wars and current Iraq/Afghanistan.
So we win, we are more warlike than the Roman Empire.:eek:
Mine was of course in reference to the West, though there has always been a high price for that.
 
Hugh Januss said:
When was this "Pax Americana" that you speak of? It was only about 5 or 6 years between WWII and the Korean war, then Vietnam. If we include our involvement in the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (where our funding helped to produce two new groups that were on our side, the Taliban and Al Qaeda) we can then move seamlessly right into the Gulf wars and current Iraq/Afghanistan.
So we win, we are more warlike than the Roman Empire.:eek:
:p

War of Independence (1775–1783)
Mexican–American War (1846-1848)
American Civil War (1861–1865)
Spanish-American War (1898)
Various Indian wars
First World War (1917-1918)
Second World War (1941-1945)
Korean War (1950-1953)
Vietnam War (1957-1975)
Panama Invaison (1989)
Gulf War (1990-1991)
Somolia (1992-1993)
Balkan War (1996-1999)
War on Terrorism & Afghanistan (2001–present)
Iraq War (2003-2011)
 
Mar 17, 2009
2,280
0
0
Hugh Januss said:
I mostly agree with you (I know, alert the media), but Glenn (or as you call him, Glen) falls under the heading of being sent off to set up the rules more than enjoying the benefits. True he lived through that so now he can enjoy the benefits, so I guess you can hate him for that.
Mostly I cut him a little slack because he is obviously slightly brilliant (after all he is friends with ChrisE).:D
bravo !!!!
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
ChewbaccaD said:
I would back off the "idiotic" part unless you want a list of cases that YOUR conservative justices have acted like the document was living when it suited their needs. To suggest the founders did not envision the document would be interpreted (which by it's definition means it is unclear and in need of clarification and adaptation) is what is idiotic. Until you actually study constitutional law, I would back off statements like that. You need a living document, you are just too blinded by partisan bullsh!t to recognize it.
There's a difference between the interpretation of the constitution and the modification of it.

There's a reason why the constitution is exceptionally difficult to amend.

As for idiotic decisions rendered by the supremes, that knife cuts both ways.
 
Scott SoCal said:
Which really gets us back to the constitution and this idiotic argument that its a " living, breathing document"... That amendments are behind the times, etc.

The founders understood very well what would happen when guaranteed rights began to erode. Yet very bright people seem shocked that... rights are being eroded.

I don't have clean hands in this, btw. I don't think I really understood the depth of the patriot act. At the time it seemed a minor trade-off compared to the idea of constant terror activity in the US.
Uh huh. Because terror activity had been so constant in the US up to that moment. Hard to walk out the front door some days.....

Setting aside whatever the founders meant by happiness (let's assume it was roughly along the lines of enterprise and relative prosperity), you can't possibly argue that definitions of "life" and "liberty" have not been continuously argued, narrowed and transformed over the past 200 some years in a variety of professional disciplines. Why would it be any different then, let alone surprising, that as the definition of life is subject to constant revision that the rights to it would also be subjected to a rethinking from all sorts of positions of interest?
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
aphronesis said:
Uh huh. Because terror activity had been so constant in the US up to that moment. Hard to walk out the front door some days.....

Setting aside whatever the founders meant by happiness (let's assume it was roughly along the lines of enterprise and relative prosperity), you can't possibly argue that definitions of "life" and "liberty" have not been continuously redefined and argued over during the past 200 some years in a variety of professional disciplines. Why would it be any different then, let alone surprising, that as the definition of life is subject to constant revision that the rights to it would also be subjected to a rethinking from all sorts of positions of interest?
Uh huh. Because terror activity had been so constant in the US up to that moment. Hard to walk out the front door some days.....
Oh that's right. 9/11 really wasn't very significant at all. Everybody understood it was a one-off.. a lucky shot.... that something like that was extremely unlikely to ever happen again.

Setting aside whatever the founders meant by happiness (let's assume it was roughly along the lines of enterprise and relative prosperity)
Happiness was left to the individual within the confines of the rule of law.

As to the rest of your post, sure, life has been debated on technically narrow terms. Terri Schiavo comes to mind. Liberty? Yeah, revisions going on all the time.
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,307
1
0
python said:
can you help here, glen ? Did you mean that those expressing their concerns with the us govnt illegally spying on their citizens are bashers of hate ? Without an explanation you sound like the haters you seem to be mocking..or, likely, the thin skinned flag waver unable to face the facts...please help us here b/c you sound upset.
Upset? About what?
It was a joke with regards to the conversation. I thought it was funny how the USA was taking it on the chin from the majority of posts.

Why would you call me names for example "thin skinned flag waver"?
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,307
1
0
python said:
it is the sick FAMILY bro, YOU and i included:(

The Problems is, some mericans, the minority like in this thread, see it as you and i, and the majority are ignorants like glen raised on waving their flag while enjoying the benefits of being born in a country fairly or unfairly sending their sons to set up the rules of the world without paying much attention to what the receivers think of the unwanted, self-imposed rule setters...

The total spying on the domestic scene while lecturing the rest of the world on what the democracy is supposed to be, is, yes, too stupid.
You got me waving the flag again and enjoying benefits. I have no idea what you mean by this but could you clarify?


2n's
 
May 27, 2012
5,293
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
There's a difference between the interpretation of the constitution and the modification of it.

There's a reason why the constitution is exceptionally difficult to amend.

As for idiotic decisions rendered by the supremes, that knife cuts both ways.
Point one: Not in actual effect there isn't. Interpretation inherently modifies the words in the sense that there have been subsequent decisions on those interpretations regarding what those interpretations actually mean. It is an ever growing body of law, not a search for answers that simply are not there. If the answers were there, there would be no need to interpret. The history of Court decisions belies your point. Again, if the document is not living, there is no way to apply it to unforeseen situations, technologies, and challenges. The men who wrote it left some evidence of their intent, but not enough to supply answers to 237 years of questions. And again, they're dead. Your side pretends that 18th century wiring can adequately supply power to a 21st century building, and it just isn't possible.

Point two: Yes, it is, and that has nothing to do with the fact that the Court has a long history of determining how that document applies to various challenges and situations. When you get down to it, the function of judicial review is not explicitly provided for in the constitution, and there is a reason for that...but that didn't stop the court from determining that they have that right, and for every subsequent justice from using that power. Again, the history of the court is one that is completely different from what conservatives say it "should" be. You remind me of children with your fingers in your ears, and your eyes shut, who are screaming over and over about your frustration with reality.

Point three: The difference is that my side doesn't have decisions that deny their belief that the document is living...your's have decisions where a living document philosophy was necessary to render that decision, though your justices refuse to recognize that is the basis upon which they ruled. Just because Scalia says he doesn't believe in a living document doesn't mean the hasn't written decisions that relied on that exact philosophy. Again, children with fingers in ears and eyes shut...
 
Scott SoCal said:
Oh that's right. 9/11 really wasn't very significant at all. Everybody understood it was a one-off.. a lucky shot.... that something like that was extremely unlikely to ever happen again.



Happiness was left to the individual within the confines of the rule of law.

As to the rest of your post, sure, life has been debated on technically narrow terms. Terri Schiavo comes to mind. Liberty? Yeah, revisions going on all the time.
Yeah well many of us were far less than surprised when it happened and there were long standing arguments that maybe some changes in US foreign policy would be useful. Instead we got the Patriot Act when greater vigilance might have sufficed.

Schiavo is only an extreme case, think about the rules of law that establish basic norms.
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
ChewbaccaD said:
Point one: Not in actual effect there isn't. Interpretation inherently modifies the words in the sense that there have been subsequent decisions on those interpretations regarding what those interpretations actually mean. It is an ever growing body of law, not a search for answers that simply are not there. If the answers were there, there would be no need to interpret. The history of Court decisions belies your point. Again, if the document is not living, there is no way to apply it to unforeseen situations, technologies, and challenges. The men who wrote it left some evidence of their intent, but not enough to supply answers to 237 years of questions. And again, they're dead. Your side pretends that 18th century wiring can adequately supply power to a 21st century building, and it just isn't possible.

Point two: Yes, it is, and that has nothing to do with the fact that the Court has a long history of determining how that document applies to various challenges and situations. When you get down to it, the function of judicial review is not explicitly provided for in the constitution, and there is a reason for that...but that didn't stop the court from determining that they have that right, and for every subsequent justice from using that power. Again, the history of the court is one that is completely different from what conservatives say it "should" be. You remind me of children with your fingers in your ears, and your eyes shut, who are screaming over and over about your frustration with reality.

Point three: The difference is that my side doesn't have decisions that deny their belief that the document is living...your's have decisions where a living document philosophy was necessary to render that decision, though your justices refuse to recognize that is the basis upon which they ruled. Just because Scalia says he doesn't believe in a living document doesn't mean the hasn't written decisions that relied on that exact philosophy. Again, children with fingers in ears and eyes shut...

Mostly distinctions without a difference. The very purpose of the Supreme Court is to interpret the constitution, what it says and what than means within the context of any action or situation.

Individual words can cover a lot of ground. Hell, Clinton famously argued the definition of the word "is."

That SCOTUS decisions fundamentally change the constitution isn't the scope of the court. You would know better than I so I'll ask, is this happening or has it happened?
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
aphronesis said:
Yeah well many of us were far less than surprised when it happened and there were long standing arguments that maybe some changes in US foreign policy would be useful. Instead we got the Patriot Act when greater vigilance might have sufficed.

Schiavo is only an extreme case, think about the rules of law that establish basic norms.

Yeah well hindsight is always quite good, isn't it?

Rules of law are one of the foundations of this representative republic. There are limits on everything including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
 
Scott SoCal said:
Yeah well hindsight is always quite good, isn't it?

Rules of law are one of the foundations of this representative republic. There are limits on everything including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Not talking about hindsight, but the present. It was a reactionary (deceptively) short- range seeming solution and now people are grousing about the long-term fall out.
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
aphronesis said:
Not talking about hindsight, but the present. It was a reactionary (deceptively) short- range seeming solution and now people are grousing about the long-term fall out.
Yeah, it was reactionary. But remember, the PA was to sunset. But, it was re-authorized. I'll bet it gets re-authorized again in 2015.

Not reactionary anymore.
 
May 27, 2012
5,293
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Mostly distinctions without a difference. The very purpose of the Supreme Court is to interpret the constitution, what it says and what than means within the context of any action or situation.

Individual words can cover a lot of ground. Hell, Clinton famously argued the definition of the word "is."

That SCOTUS decisions fundamentally change the constitution isn't the scope of the court. You would know better than I so I'll ask, is this happening or has it happened?
The problem is that one side says it fundamentally changes the constitution, and the other says they are merely bringing out what the words mean. (and those sides change depending on the issue) It all depends on where you stand. The problem from the conservative perspective is that they claim to never judge in a way that treats the constitution as living and that they only judge based on what the words say...but that is a complete farce when you read their decisions. What Scalia says he does, and what he actually does are two different things, he simply chooses not to recognize and admit the contradiction in his words and rulings.

When you read the cases, what you see are swings in philosophy depending on the make-up of the court. The history of jurisprudence is filled with contradictions, shifts from and back to views, and all manner of anomalies. The most inconsistent justices however are those who claim the "dead document" view because they make it live when it suits their purposes. The one exception to that is Thomas, but his "natural law" perspective is not held by anyone else on the court, and it is quite frankly a ridiculous notion because it requires a basis in some nebulous, undefined set of rights based on some supposed historical norm that never existed. It's truly bizarre.

EDIT: And if the purpose of the Court is to "interpret the constitution" as you say, would you please provide me the reference IN THE CONSTITUTION that sets out that mission...because I've read it plenty of times, and those words are not in there.
 
May 27, 2012
5,293
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Yeah, it was reactionary. But remember, the PA was to sunset. But, it was re-authorized. I'll bet it gets re-authorized again in 2015.

Not reactionary anymore.
No it wasn't, that was bullsh!t language put in there to blow smoke up everyone's a$$ and provide plausible deniability for the reactionaries who drafted and passed that piece of sh!t legislation.
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
ChewbaccaD said:
The problem is that one side says it fundamentally changes the constitution, and the other says they are merely bringing out what the words mean. (and those sides change depending on the issue) It all depends on where you stand. The problem from the conservative perspective is that they claim to never judge in a way that treats the constitution as living and that they only judge based on what the words say...but that is a complete farce when you read their decisions. What Scalia says he does, and what he actually does are two different things, he simply chooses not to recognize and admit the contradiction in his words and rulings.

When you read the cases, what you see are swings in philosophy depending on the make-up of the court. The history of jurisprudence is filled with contradictions, shifts from and back to views, and all manner of anomalies. The most inconsistent justices however are those who claim the "dead document" view because they make it live when it suits their purposes. The one exception to that is Thomas, but his "natural law" perspective is not held by anyone else on the court, and it is quite frankly a ridiculous notion because it requires a basis in some nebulous, undefined set of rights based on some supposed historical norm that never existed. It's truly bizarre.

EDIT: And if the purpose of the Court is to "interpret the constitution" as you say, would you please provide me the reference IN THE CONSTITUTION that sets out that mission...because I've read it plenty of times, and those words are not in there.
So you fall into the camp that says SCOTUS role in judicial review is not constituitional? Or did I miss your point?
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
ChewbaccaD said:
No it wasn't, that was bullsh!t language put in there to blow smoke up everyone's a$$ and provide plausible deniability for the reactionaries who drafted and passed that piece of sh!t legislation.
And yet isn't it interesting that reauthorization had broad support for he Senate and the White House?

One of the few issues in the last few years where one could say the support was bi-partisan.
 
May 27, 2012
5,293
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
So you fall into the camp that says SCOTUS role in judicial review is not constituitional? Or did I miss your point?
No, I point out that those of you who fall into the "only what the words say" philosophy have some serious inconsistencies.
 
May 27, 2012
5,293
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
And yet isn't it interesting that reauthorization had broad support for he Senate and the White House?

One of the few issues in the last few years where one could say the support was bi-partisan.
I'm not defending Obama in this, I am just pointing out the fact that they are a blatant violation of our constitutional rights, and Republicans are fully on-board with their continued use...not only that, but they wrote the blatantly unconstitutional language.
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
ChewbaccaD said:
I'm not defending Obama in this, I am just pointing out the fact that they are a blatant violation of our constitutional rights, and Republicans are fully on-board with their continued use...not only that, but they wrote the blatantly unconstitutional language.
Hard to argue with this.

The issue is fascinating as some people who are diametrically opposed on almost every issue are in agreement as to its constitutionality (both for and against).
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
ChewbaccaD said:
No, I point out that those of you who fall into the "only what the words say" philosophy have some serious inconsistencies.
Don't we all.

I think I understand where you are coming from.
 
May 27, 2012
5,293
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Hard to argue with this.

The issue is fascinating as some people who are diametrically opposed on almost every issue are in agreement as to its constitutionality (both for and against).
I know, me and Glen Beck...:D
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts