First, if scalia was a true constructionalist why did he not agree with oconnor thomas and rehnquist on the Med case?
Second, if there were constructionalists on the court we should expect to see stinging condemnations of administrative warrants, opinions that a number of federal departments are unconstitutional, and number of other items. Granted Thomas is closer to a constructionalist viewpoint, but a true constructionalist would be forced to consistently rule against the power and scope of today's federal government.
Sadly in today's climate no one of that mindset has the potential to make it far on the federal bench.
New principles - using international law to ban juvenile death sentences.
Regardless of its morality using international law sets a precedent that the rulings and laws of other nations (which are unelected and not beholden to the american public) can be used to justify other issues.
This IMO is clearly not their job. The only items used should be the constitution, the framers opinions, and common law.
If Bush gets his 2 replacements, we could be fucked.
Your point is moot. The constitution does not limit how many justices the court is made up of. If Bush wanted to he could simply ADD justices.
That is how FDR steamrollered the high court into accepting his new deal programs. The courst declared many of his first programs unconstitutional. FDR responded by trying to add an additional judge to the court for each judge over a certain age (60 I think) which would have effectively doubled the size of the court. The proposal died in Congress, but got the desired effect; the court knuckled under.
on the court. There are only those who claim to be contructionalists when it supports their agenda. The medical marijuana case clearly shows that. If ever there was a clear cut case of states vs federal power that is it.
What we really have is two camps of judges, one who promotes the increase of federal power for the liberal agenda, and another camp which promotes the increase of federal power for the conservative agenda.
according to the utilitarian ethical view, intelligence is not the defining point of ethical judgement. Thus according to this view, animals should have rights as living beings. From the link: "If a being suffers, there can be no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into consideration."
Yet if we assume the above, then animals not only have rights, but responsibilities to OTHER animals. Thus you have a problem. By subscribing to this view you can and MUST judge the tiger's acts as immoral for he infringes upon the right to life of his prey.
Contractarianism makes for a poor ethical system, since it cannot cover children or the mentally infirm (except as indirect recipients of the sentiments of contractors). And it means that numbers determine morality - if enough of us agree that persons of a certain skin tone, or gender, or religious belief, aren't worth, we just agree to a contract that excludes them. Might makes right.
There is the way the world is and the utopia we may wish it to be. As sad as it is, I would have to say that might does indeed make right. Your rights, my rights anyone's or anything's rights are solely determined by our singular or collective ability to defend them.
The very fact that our history is replete with what we would NOW consider unethical behaviour, seems to indicate that the social contract is indeed the basis of or moral foundation. Otherwise one would assume that our sense of morality is an inate in-born function, and thus our history would not show cruelty towards humans, nor animals.
Finally, let us assume that your belief in preventing pain towards animals comes true, how would it come into being? By Majority opinion! When enough people are convinced that killing animals for meat is wrong, they would have to pass laws and punish those people who do not agree with them in order to stop the practice.
Either by the environment through adpation, or by god if you are of an religious bent.
The fact remains we are DESIGNED to be ominvores. If you doubt this fact merely look at our closest relatives the chimpanzees who kill and eat meat when they can get it.
"It is not approriate to label the actions of non-human animals as "immoral", nor to take those actions as an ethical guide. "
Really? Are we not a part of the natural world? Did we not evolve just as every other animal on the planet? We ARE a product of the natural world, and thus acting within its confines. Most often it is a case of survival of the fittest.
As I said before, while domestication may not work out well for an individual chicken,(I would argue that it does for some) it has for the species as a WHOLE. They are protected from other predators, and gain free food.
"The fact that we are biologically to do something doesn't mean it's ethically correct to do so. I'm biologically able - encouraged by basic drives, even - to have sex with every reasonably attractive woman I see. That doesn't make rape or infidelity ethical behavior."
I am intrigued by your implication. Your "designed" coment implies you do not believe in god. Thus where exactly do ethics come from? I would argue they are based solely upon a social contract. I.E. I give up the "right" to kill you with the expectation that you give up the "right" to kill me. Only those social contracts which are beneficial to both parties tend to survive.
"That doesn't make rape or infidelity ethical behavior."
Not to defend either, but you do realize that many laws are cultural and vary from place to place. There are cultures where polygamy and polyandry are an accepted norm. Is their lifestyle immoral? Only BY YOUR standards, not theirs.
What about medical experiments? If 1000 dogs needed to die in order to learn some new technique to save 1000 people, is it worth it? If not is there any point at which it is? I.E. 1000 dogs= 1,000,000 lives saved?
How about hunters in africa or south america are they justified if the alternative is starvation?
I'd say a more worthwhile cause would be to devote time and energy to the overpopulation problem.
Lions and Tigers eat meat, and thus they kill herbivores. This means they cause pain to their prey as well. Are their acts then immoral? No, they are designed to eat meat, that is their role in the "circle of life" if you will.
WE are omnivores. We are designed to eat both plants and animals. Thus IMO it is not wrong to eat meat.
On another note, if we did not use animal products there would be far fewer cows, pigs chickens etc, as we would have no incentive to raise and feed them. Way back when, man and a certain subset of animals came to an arrangement. We domesticated them, protect them from other predators and provide them food. Eventually we call in the marker. Compared to non-domesticated species, the bargain seems to be worthwhile for domestic ones. We are crowding the wild animals out, yet even as they lose habitat, domesticated animals gain habitat.
The only issue I have is with animal overcrowding. I.E. our livestock should have some quality of life. Thus I don't eat things like veal.
They are not ultra-conservative. They are Pro-state. An ultra conservative judge would read the constitution, understand it, and then declare much of what the federal government does unconstitutional.
BTW, do not call them neo-cons. Call them Nazi-cons. It better describes their worldview.
I wish we had some truly constructionalist judges who would challenge congress, but as the whole medical marijuana issue shows states rights are out the window. The constitution has been subverted, and the judges have let it slide since FDR.
I do my duty, I vote Libertarian, and encourage others to do the same. Liberty is going down the toilet though. I guess Americans today really prefer that SUV, Monday night football and gubment cheese to freedom.
FWIW, I am a Libertarian, so both dems and reps disgust me. That said, I have to reply to this: "You gotta love how liberals believe that if you write enough stuff, people will think it is true. They build bad cases upon flawed logic based on opinions. It's all third grade logic."
The Reps are not any better. Going into Iraq they lied their asses off....
"Iraq-911-Al-queda", Iraq may have nukes, they have chemical weapons, we don't care what the UN says. They lied so much that a majority of americans thought Iraq attacked us on 911....
If ever there was a bad case built upon flawed logic and sold with lies that was it. Funny how the administration stopped talking about finding the weapons eh? They even had the balls to say oh well NOW its about FREEDOM. Forget about all the false claims we made to justify invading.
Bush even said that if he knew Iraq had no weapons he would have invaded anyway.
I am a Libertarian, and I want the USA out of the UN. If we need treaties then negotiate them with individual GOVERNMENTS not the U.N.
As for your other points:
"21. H.R.777 : To prohibit any Federal official from expending any Federal funds for any population control or population planning program or any family planning activity. "
The Federal Government has no constitutional role for such funding PERIOD. Nor alot of other funding it does. It ALL needs to go! Thus it is Libertarian.
"23. H.R.1017 : To prohibit United States voluntary and assessed contributions to the United Nations if the United Nations imposes any tax or fee on any United States person or continues to develop or promote proposals for such a tax or fee. Abridges individual liberties by PROHIBITING private citizens of the Unites States from giving their OWN money to the U.N. to fund its efforts. "
Bullshit. It does not prohibit you donating money to the UN. It prohibts the U.S.A. from collecting and giving moneis for an INTERNATIONAL U.N. Tax upon US citizens.
"24. H.R.1146 : To end membership of the United States in the United Nations. Sponsor: Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] (introduced 3/8/2005) xxxxxxxxxxxx Socially conservative. Unrelated to smaller government. Directly opposes the Libertarian ideal of a Constitutional government. Conducting international diplomacy (say, via the U.N.) is EXACTLY what the federal government is supposed to do."
Obviously you are not looking at the U.N. and its attempts to usurp our soveriegnty. I already have an overload of government with federal, state,and local. I dont need global added to the list. I'd also like to keep my guns which the U.N. would like to take away as well.
"28. H.R.1658 : To ensure that the courts interpret the Constitution in the manner that the Framers intended. Sponsor: Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] (introduced 4/14/2005) "
From the Bill itself: Neither the Supreme Court of the United States nor any lower Federal court shall, in the purported exercise of judicial power to interpret and apply the Constitution of the United States, employ the constitution, laws, administrative rules, executive orders, directives, policies, or judicial decisions of any international organization or foreign state, except for the English constitutional and common law or other sources of law relied upon by the Framers of the Constitution of the United States.
Yes, that is what the framers intended. I do not care what other governments or other nations courts do. I did not VOTE for them nor do they represent me. Thus using their courts to reinterperet OUR Constitution is not what our judges are supposed to do.
"20. H.R.776 : To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.
Sponsor: Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] (introduced 2/10/2005)"
This is the one area I disagree with Paul on. However it is a contentious issue within the Libertarian Party. So much so that abortion has been left out of the parties plank.
If you truly believe that Lincoln was justified in arresting northern jounalists, and war protestors, and trying to have the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court arrested for disagreeing with him, I Pity You....
That is the antithesis of what this country was founded upon. People with your unquestioning acceptance of "authority" are the reason this country is in such a sad state.
like saying "my client is withdrawing his support for a moratorium on violence" is really a terrorist act?
It is BS plain and simple. It sends a message to lawyers willing to defend the accused. That was its purpose.
If she had passed along CONCRETE orders saying "commit terrorist act X" then I'd agree with you. Notice they did not charge her with any such thing. Only that she spoke to the media about the "sheiks" moratorium, and made "noise" during visits.
Slashdot Mirror
First, if scalia was a true constructionalist why did he not agree with oconnor thomas and rehnquist on the Med case?
Second, if there were constructionalists on the court we should expect to see stinging condemnations of administrative warrants, opinions that a number of federal departments are unconstitutional, and number of other items. Granted Thomas is closer to a constructionalist viewpoint, but a true constructionalist would be forced to consistently rule against the power and scope of today's federal government.
Sadly in today's climate no one of that mindset has the potential to make it far on the federal bench.
but it got his message through to SCOTUS.
That was all he cared about.
New principles - using international law to ban juvenile death sentences.
Regardless of its morality using international law sets a precedent that the rulings and laws of other nations (which are unelected and not beholden to the american public) can be used to
justify other issues.
This IMO is clearly not their job. The only items used should be the constitution, the framers opinions, and common law.
If Bush gets his 2 replacements, we could be fucked.
Your point is moot. The constitution does not limit how many justices the court is made up of. If Bush wanted to he could simply ADD justices.
That is how FDR steamrollered the high court into accepting his new deal programs. The courst declared many of his first programs unconstitutional. FDR responded by trying to add an additional judge to the court for each judge over a certain age (60 I think) which would have effectively doubled the size of the court. The proposal died in Congress, but got the desired effect; the court knuckled under.
on the court. There are only those who claim to be contructionalists when it supports their agenda. The medical marijuana case clearly shows that. If ever there was a clear cut case of states vs federal power that is it.
What we really have is two camps of judges, one who promotes the increase of federal power for the liberal agenda, and another camp which promotes the increase of federal power for the conservative agenda.
A constructionalist would do neither....
yet I have a few questions.
:
according to the utilitarian ethical view, intelligence is not the defining point of ethical judgement. Thus according to this view, animals
should have rights as living beings. From the link
"If a being suffers, there can be no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into consideration."
Yet if we assume the above, then animals not only have rights, but responsibilities to OTHER animals. Thus you have a problem. By subscribing to this view you can and MUST judge the tiger's acts as immoral for he infringes upon the right to life of his prey.
Contractarianism makes for a poor ethical system, since it cannot cover children or the mentally infirm (except as indirect recipients of the sentiments of contractors). And it means that numbers determine morality - if enough of us agree that persons of a certain skin tone, or gender, or religious belief, aren't worth, we just agree to a contract that excludes them. Might makes right.
There is the way the world is and the utopia we may wish it to be. As sad as it is, I would have to say that might does indeed make right. Your rights, my rights anyone's or anything's rights are solely determined by our singular or collective ability to defend them.
The very fact that our history is replete with what we would NOW consider unethical behaviour, seems to indicate that the social contract is indeed the basis of or moral foundation. Otherwise one would assume that our sense of morality is an inate in-born function, and thus our history would not show cruelty towards humans, nor animals.
Finally, let us assume that your belief in preventing pain towards animals comes true, how would it come into being? By Majority opinion! When enough people are convinced that killing animals for meat is wrong, they would have to pass laws and punish those people who do not agree with them in order to stop the practice.
""Designed"? By whom? "
Either by the environment through adpation, or by god if you are of an religious bent.
The fact remains we are DESIGNED to be ominvores.
If you doubt this fact merely look at our closest relatives the chimpanzees who kill and eat meat when they can get it.
"It is not approriate to label the actions of non-human animals as "immoral", nor to take those actions as an ethical guide. "
Really? Are we not a part of the natural world?
Did we not evolve just as every other animal on the planet? We ARE a product of the natural world, and thus acting within its confines. Most often it is a case of survival of the fittest.
As I said before, while domestication may not work out well for an individual chicken,(I would argue that it does for some) it has for the species as a WHOLE. They are protected from other predators, and gain free food.
"The fact that we are biologically to do something doesn't mean it's ethically correct to do so. I'm biologically able - encouraged by basic drives, even - to have sex with every reasonably attractive woman I see. That doesn't make rape or infidelity ethical behavior."
I am intrigued by your implication. Your "designed" coment implies you do not believe in god. Thus where exactly do ethics come from? I would argue they are based solely upon a social contract. I.E. I give up the "right" to kill you with the expectation that you give up the "right" to kill me. Only those social contracts which are beneficial to both parties tend to survive.
"That doesn't make rape or infidelity ethical behavior."
Not to defend either, but you do realize that
many laws are cultural and vary from place to place. There are cultures where polygamy and polyandry are an accepted norm. Is their lifestyle immoral? Only BY YOUR standards, not theirs.
What about medical experiments? If 1000 dogs needed to die in order to learn some new technique to save 1000 people, is it worth it?
If not is there any point at which it is? I.E. 1000 dogs= 1,000,000 lives saved?
How about hunters in africa or south america are they justified if the alternative is starvation?
I'd say a more worthwhile cause would be to devote time and energy to the overpopulation problem.
and Ice-9 too...
Bokonon was a lazy bastard. Its time for the hook!
(This message brought to you by the friends of bokonon)
Emporer Palpatine will be along shortly
to dissolve the Senate.
"There is a reason that Leif Erikson called what is currently an ice heavy area Greenland."
Yes,
Lief's colonial and vacation Tour business was in trouble. It seems nobody want to go to "Frozen Hellhole Land"....
He hired a PR firm and a focus group came up with the solution. Rename the place "Greenland" !
He found the step 3
1. Sell tour packages
2. ship "tourists" to frozen hellhole
3. Leave "tourists" to die and recruit replacements
4. Profit!!
"Animals feel pain, isn't that enough reason ?"
No.
Lions and Tigers eat meat, and thus they kill herbivores. This means they cause pain to their prey as well. Are their acts then immoral? No, they are designed to eat meat, that is their role in the "circle of life" if you will.
WE are omnivores. We are designed to eat both plants and animals. Thus IMO it is not wrong to eat meat.
On another note, if we did not use animal products there would be far fewer cows, pigs chickens etc, as we would have no incentive to raise and feed them. Way back when, man and a certain subset of animals came to an arrangement. We domesticated them, protect them from other predators and provide them food. Eventually we call in the marker. Compared to non-domesticated species, the bargain seems to be worthwhile for domestic ones. We are crowding the wild animals out, yet even as they lose habitat, domesticated animals gain habitat.
The only issue I have is with animal overcrowding. I.E. our livestock should have some quality of life. Thus I don't eat things like veal.
but certainly the "Constitutional" part is now suspect.
They are not ultra-conservative. They are Pro-state. An ultra conservative judge would read the constitution, understand it, and then declare much of what the federal government does unconstitutional.
BTW, do not call them neo-cons. Call them Nazi-cons. It better describes their worldview.
They have given up on their duty period.
I wish we had some truly constructionalist judges who would challenge congress, but as the whole medical marijuana issue shows states rights are out the window. The constitution has been subverted, and the judges have let it slide since FDR.
I do my duty, I vote Libertarian, and encourage others to do the same. Liberty is going down the toilet though. I guess Americans today really prefer that SUV, Monday night football and gubment cheese to freedom.
"United States' noble origins -- Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, all progressive atheists "
Most people in this country have never heard of Thomas Paine. I'd say maybe 10-20% maximum.
In addition I think they only know that Jefferson and Washington were presidents,
and that Franklin flew kites....
Our educational system glosses a lot of shit over, and drops some very pertinent information.
BTW I believe all of these guys were deists, not atheists.
FWIW, I am a Libertarian, so both dems and reps disgust me. That said, I have to reply to this:
"You gotta love how liberals believe that if you write enough stuff, people will think it is true. They build bad cases upon flawed logic based on opinions. It's all third grade logic."
The Reps are not any better. Going into Iraq they lied their asses off....
"Iraq-911-Al-queda", Iraq may have nukes, they have chemical weapons, we don't care what the UN says. They lied so much that a majority of americans thought Iraq attacked us on 911....
If ever there was a bad case built upon flawed logic and sold with lies that was it. Funny how the administration stopped talking about finding the weapons eh? They even had the balls to say oh well NOW its about FREEDOM. Forget about all the false claims we made to justify invading.
Bush even said that if he knew Iraq had no weapons he would have invaded anyway.
Repeat after me:
In Oceania the Government....(fill in the blank).
The Soviet Russia posts need to stop. They are old school. Oceania is the future!
"Bad dialogue as usual: 'To say that George Lucas cannot write a love scene is an understatement; greeting cards have expressed more passion.'"
Hello? He's a GEEK! Before he got rich the closest he ever came to a love scene was
most likely delivered monthly courtesy of hugh hefner.....
btu wlli ti wrk if I tpey htings ni schu a wya thta u cna raed lla abuto a trreor plt?
I smee 2 ermmeber taht poeple cn rdae obfsuctaed
wrds. So hw wlle wlil ti wrok whne I strt tlaknig
aobut pultonmiu ro drity bmbs?
I am a Libertarian, and I want the USA out of the UN. If we need treaties then negotiate them with individual GOVERNMENTS not the U.N.
:
As for your other points
"21. H.R.777 : To prohibit any Federal official from expending any Federal funds for any population control or population planning program or any family planning activity.
"
The Federal Government has no constitutional role for such funding PERIOD. Nor alot of other funding it does. It ALL needs to go! Thus it is Libertarian.
"23. H.R.1017 : To prohibit United States voluntary and assessed contributions to the United Nations if the United Nations imposes any tax or fee on any United States person or continues to develop or promote proposals for such a tax or fee.
Abridges individual liberties by PROHIBITING private citizens of the Unites States from giving their OWN money to the U.N. to fund its efforts.
"
Bullshit. It does not prohibit you donating money to the UN. It prohibts the U.S.A. from collecting and giving moneis for an INTERNATIONAL U.N. Tax upon US citizens.
"24. H.R.1146 : To end membership of the United States in the United Nations.
Sponsor: Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] (introduced 3/8/2005)
xxxxxxxxxxxx
Socially conservative. Unrelated to smaller government. Directly opposes the Libertarian ideal of a Constitutional government. Conducting international diplomacy (say, via the U.N.) is EXACTLY what the federal government is supposed to do."
Obviously you are not looking at the U.N. and its attempts to usurp our soveriegnty. I already have an overload of government with federal, state,and local. I dont need global added to the list. I'd also like to keep my guns which the U.N. would like to take away as well.
"28. H.R.1658 : To ensure that the courts interpret the Constitution in the manner that the Framers intended.
Sponsor: Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] (introduced 4/14/2005)
"
From the Bill itself:
Neither the Supreme Court of the United States nor any lower Federal court shall, in the purported exercise of judicial power to interpret and apply the Constitution of the United States, employ the constitution, laws, administrative rules, executive orders, directives, policies, or judicial decisions of any international organization or foreign state, except for the English constitutional and common law or other sources of law relied upon by the Framers of the Constitution of the United States.
Yes, that is what the framers intended. I do not care what other governments or other nations courts do. I did not VOTE for them nor do they represent me. Thus using their courts to reinterperet OUR Constitution is not what our judges are supposed to do.
"20. H.R.776 : To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.
Sponsor: Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] (introduced 2/10/2005)"
This is the one area I disagree with Paul on.
However it is a contentious issue within the Libertarian Party. So much so that abortion has been left out of the parties plank.
So yeah, I'd say he is a Libertarian.
If you truly believe that Lincoln was justified
in arresting northern jounalists, and war protestors, and trying to have the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court arrested for disagreeing with him, I Pity You....
That is the antithesis of what this country was founded upon. People with your unquestioning acceptance of "authority" are the reason this country is in such a sad state.
like saying "my client is withdrawing his support for a moratorium on violence" is really
a terrorist act?
It is BS plain and simple. It sends a message to lawyers willing to defend the accused. That was its purpose.
If she had passed along CONCRETE orders saying "commit terrorist act X" then I'd agree with you. Notice they did not charge her with any such thing. Only that she spoke to the media about the "sheiks" moratorium, and made "noise" during visits.
Since the Ballot box seems broken,
what about other ideas?
A Petition for Redress?
Or perhaps a Jury Strike?
I.E. as a Juror I would vote innocent on ALL non-violent federal crimes.
I wonder what the federal reaction would be?
Join this instead.
The left and right coming together against tyranny.
If only we had a Congress and Senate with more of his ilk!
Sadly, "Dr. NO" seems to be one of a kind.