Mutants? Ground? Earth? C'mon, that happened over 20 years ago. Talk about selective memory.;)
Perhaps there's no evidence that this kind of thing will happen soon. (And I didn't mean to suggest the SC would decide against the Constitution.) But it IS a POSSIBILTY that exists in the system. Of course, there are many benefits to the current system that we have, as you have mentioned, but that is not to say that there aren't potential problems. Can you name one potentially bad thing about the current judicial system?
My argument is that there exists the potential, within the system, that an unconstitutional law could be passed that might cause harm to people until it was repealed. I do not need to demonstrate that this has happened for my point to be valid.
I'm not saying that the sky is falling. I'm saying that the potential for abuse exists. Do you deny this rather weak claim?
I'm not worried about the PATRIOT Act being used against me personally, but I'm still doing something about. I don't waste all of my time posting to Slashdot.;)
I agree that the Supreme Court is quite speedy in accepting and deciding cases. And, you are correct, I cannot name a single case where it took 10 years for the Supreme Court to hear a case from the first filing.
My specific contention is the amount of time that it takes for a challenge to a law to appear in front of the Supreme Court. How long is too long? Well, the PATRIOT act was signed into law near the end of 2000, and very few of its provisions have been stricken.
Fortunately, for my argument to work, I don't need to cite ANY specific examples: just the threat that such a law COULD be created is threat enough. Maybe Congress has not yet drafted a law so odious that its unconstitutionality has been immediately felt, but it's possible.
It is very easy to make a law that goes against the Constitution. In the United States, a law is reviewed for its constitutionality AFTER it has been created, and AFTER a person with standing has gone through the legal system and made it to the Supreme Court.
That's why the Supreme Court is able to say, "We've reviewed this law that Congress wrote ten years ago and have decided that it's unconstitutional."
I take objection to your statement that in order for one to live, other things must die. While this may be true, many people, including myself, feel compelled to reduce the amount of suffering that we cause in the world. I am probably not able to eliminate the suffering that I cause, but I am certainly able to reduce it.
As a vegan, I detest the use of animals for food. However, for those people who do use animals for their own purposes, I do agree that the least-wasteful approach is best. (Hence, the cow industry saying, "We use everything but the moo.")
Ah, yes. And here we've hit on exactly the problem: "[A]t some point, you can comfortably say..." It seems this just boils down to a difference in comfort levels.
Interesting figure about '100 specific pieces of predictive prophecy'. Unfortunately, it doesn't account for the fact that the writings about Jesus were written many years after his death.
The supposed fulfillment of these prophecies was recorded so as to give the impression that Jesus was the Messiah. The writers didn't quite get there stories together, though, and mistakenly wrote about Jesus fulfilling prophecies that were never meant for him to fulfill, like the Virgin birth of Emmanuel.
'The Septuagint had retained the Ishtar-worshipping virgin-temple practices in part by insisting on the physical virgin-birth of Isaiah's prophetic Emmanuel in verses 7:14. The later writers of Matthew and Luke relied on the Septuagint for their references. After reading this passage in Isaiah, Matthew sought to find a way to fit Jesus into the virgin-birth role that Isaiah spoke of, thus achieving a prophecy in Jesus' own birth. The impetus for the idea and the motivation which would eventually permanently seal it into the canon, came from the huge numbers of pagan converts. These converts didn't want to leave behind Mithras and Perseus, who were both virgin-born, in exchange for a Jewish Messiah who was not.' (From infidels.org)
I agree with your point, though, about the abuse of the term 'miracle'.
Corporations ARE people. I won't blame you for not knowing this, since it happened way before you were born (SANTA CLARA COUNTY v. SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, 1886.) A clerk's misleading notes on this Supreme Court ruling were later used to support the notion of "corporate personhood."
Oops! Be careful with your math. I think you meant to say that meat is equivalent to protein,
which is an indisputable fact. It differs greatly from your original claim that meat and protein are one and the same.
My diet lacks animals but does contain sufficient protein.
Also, please cite your sources so that we "true thinkers" can easily pick up on your propaganda: what Animal Rights group produced which study on the Atkins Diet? Thank you.
'Where does it say the sun revolves around the earth?'
The different versions of the Old Testament seem to agree that God stopped the Sun in its course around the Earth to allow Joshua more time with which to besiege the city of Jericho.
(I say 'different versions' here to do my part to defeat the notion that there exists an authoritative Bible.)
Slashdot Mirror
Mutants? Ground? Earth? C'mon, that happened over 20 years ago. Talk about selective memory. ;)
;)
Perhaps there's no evidence that this kind of thing will happen soon. (And I didn't mean to suggest the SC would decide against the Constitution.) But it IS a POSSIBILTY that exists in the system. Of course, there are many benefits to the current system that we have, as you have mentioned, but that is not to say that there aren't potential problems. Can you name one potentially bad thing about the current judicial system?
My argument is that there exists the potential, within the system, that an unconstitutional law could be passed that might cause harm to people until it was repealed. I do not need to demonstrate that this has happened for my point to be valid.
I'm not saying that the sky is falling. I'm saying that the potential for abuse exists. Do you deny this rather weak claim?
I'm not worried about the PATRIOT Act being used against me personally, but I'm still doing something about. I don't waste all of my time posting to Slashdot.
I agree that the Supreme Court is quite speedy in accepting and deciding cases. And, you are correct, I cannot name a single case where it took 10 years for the Supreme Court to hear a case from the first filing.
My specific contention is the amount of time that it takes for a challenge to a law to appear in front of the Supreme Court. How long is too long? Well, the PATRIOT act was signed into law near the end of 2000, and very few of its provisions have been stricken.
Fortunately, for my argument to work, I don't need to cite ANY specific examples: just the threat that such a law COULD be created is threat enough. Maybe Congress has not yet drafted a law so odious that its unconstitutionality has been immediately felt, but it's possible.
It is very easy to make a law that goes against the Constitution. In the United States, a law is reviewed for its constitutionality AFTER it has been created, and AFTER a person with standing has gone through the legal system and made it to the Supreme Court.
That's why the Supreme Court is able to say, "We've reviewed this law that Congress wrote ten years ago and have decided that it's unconstitutional."
Scary, no?
Please remind me exactly how invading a sovereign nation protects your freedom: I can never seem to remember that detail.
I take objection to your statement that in order for one to live, other things must die. While this may be true, many people, including myself, feel compelled to reduce the amount of suffering that we cause in the world. I am probably not able to eliminate the suffering that I cause, but I am certainly able to reduce it.
As a vegan, I detest the use of animals for food. However, for those people who do use animals for their own purposes, I do agree that the least-wasteful approach is best. (Hence, the cow industry saying, "We use everything but the moo.")
Ah, yes. And here we've hit on exactly the problem: "[A]t some point, you can comfortably say..." It seems this just boils down to a difference in comfort levels.
BTW - Thank you for not insulting me. =)
The supposed fulfillment of these prophecies was recorded so as to give the impression that Jesus was the Messiah. The writers didn't quite get there stories together, though, and mistakenly wrote about Jesus fulfilling prophecies that were never meant for him to fulfill, like the Virgin birth of Emmanuel.
'The Septuagint had retained the Ishtar-worshipping virgin-temple practices in part by insisting on the physical virgin-birth of Isaiah's prophetic Emmanuel in verses 7:14. The later writers of Matthew and Luke relied on the Septuagint for their references. After reading this passage in Isaiah, Matthew sought to find a way to fit Jesus into the virgin-birth role that Isaiah spoke of, thus achieving a prophecy in Jesus' own birth. The impetus for the idea and the motivation which would eventually permanently seal it into the canon, came from the huge numbers of pagan converts. These converts didn't want to leave behind Mithras and Perseus, who were both virgin-born, in exchange for a Jewish Messiah who was not.' (From infidels.org)
I agree with your point, though, about the abuse of the term 'miracle'.
Corporations ARE people. I won't blame you for not knowing this, since it happened way before you were born (SANTA CLARA COUNTY v. SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, 1886.) A clerk's misleading notes on this Supreme Court ruling were later used to support the notion of "corporate personhood."
You can read more about it here.
I couldn't find my senator: I live in DC. Oh, that's right, we fall under the Taxation Without Representation plan.
When computers use
digital rights management
your rights are managed
Oops! Be careful with your math. I think you meant to say that meat is equivalent to protein, which is an indisputable fact. It differs greatly from your original claim that meat and protein are one and the same. My diet lacks animals but does contain sufficient protein. Also, please cite your sources so that we "true thinkers" can easily pick up on your propaganda: what Animal Rights group produced which study on the Atkins Diet? Thank you.
'Where does it say the sun revolves around the earth?' The different versions of the Old Testament seem to agree that God stopped the Sun in its course around the Earth to allow Joshua more time with which to besiege the city of Jericho. (I say 'different versions' here to do my part to defeat the notion that there exists an authoritative Bible.)
And, I might add, most people also do not understand what they were told to think by their religious dogma.
Is anyone else bored with this tired joke? Or tired of eating animals? If so, please visit www.whyvegan.org.
Yep. Check it out here: http://discover.npr.org/rundowns/segment.jhtml?wfI d=1280027