|
Redstorm
Prince of Bugs



Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 3 months, 29 days
|
Re: Why the Senate Should Not Confirm Samuel Alito [Re: zappaisgod]
#5222916 - 01/25/06 06:48 PM (18 years, 25 days ago) |
|
|
Funding by the Office of Faith-Based Initives to many of the religious charities is unconstitutional, not because of the fact that the charities are religious, but because their hiring practices are discriminatory.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 5 months, 9 days
|
Re: Why the Senate Should Not Confirm Samuel Alito [Re: Redstorm]
#5229444 - 01/27/06 12:38 AM (18 years, 24 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zappaisgod said: The author of that article may have decided that but I sure haven't. Not even close. He accepts as facts certain postulates which are not at all clear
"Now, President Bush arrogantly asserts that he has the inherent constitutional authority to wiretap American citizens on American soil without first obtaining a warrant, in direct defiance of federal legislation and the Fourth Amendment."
Are you suggesting President Bush is NOT saying he has this constituional authority???
Quote:
Sorry, but this is a gross distortion of the NSA program and not at all "clearly" in defiance of anything either statutory or constitutional.
Did I miss something? Why is the word "clearly" in quotes?
Quote:
This gentleman has been elected nothing and speaks for no one but himself. He is also "a member of the National Advisory Council of the American Civil Liberties Union" http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/stone-g/ I do not want the ACLU running anything other than school dress code issues. http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/20060125-0037-skirtsinschool.html
One of the ACLU's main purposes is to protect freedom and keep the Government from favoring any religion. You imply they have done something wrong?
Quote:
Anybody who thinks that there are any gross constitutional violations occurring is a fool and ignorant of the law.
The first may part could be true... but FISA law is clear.
Quote:
Most of the arguments made here (and in every other public forum I've read) are from a simpleminded reading of the Constitution for the sole purpose of thwarting some legislative action that they don't like.
Ah, don't take the Constitution at face value (ignore the fourth amendment's reference to warrants). Spin it to your own personal beliefs.
Quote:
No attention is paid to stare decesis and the 200+ year history of interpretation by the court.
So far I have seen no case history of wiretapping American citizens without a warrant. I don't see how a legal finding that wiretapping of foreigners is legal means that wiretapping American citizens is legal too.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
Gijith
Daisy Chain Eater

Registered: 12/04/03
Posts: 2,400
Loc: New York
|
Re: Why the Senate Should Not Confirm Samuel Alito [Re: Ancalagon]
#5229962 - 01/27/06 05:47 AM (18 years, 24 days ago) |
|
|
Considering who might get put up if Alito isn't confirmed, I think it's best to just let him on through.
-------------------- what's with neocons and the word 'ilk'?
|
Nox1
Stranger
Registered: 01/25/06
Posts: 22
Last seen: 18 years, 3 days
|
Re: Why the Senate Should Not Confirm Samuel Alito [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
#5231473 - 01/27/06 02:51 PM (18 years, 24 days ago) |
|
|
Where do I start? Okay ... the beginning.
Sorry for the time lag getting back. A few ripples in the sand with the board and then yesterday I was an election judge for a local school bond election ... which was soundly defeated (as this one should have been).
I haven't quite figure out the posting/quoting on this board yet ... but I will say this about the post two above this ...
If you think the ACLU wants to protect ALL religions ... I have a used car you may want to buy ... it has low mileage, good tires, doesn't burn oil, really clean, and is cheap.
Nox
--------------------
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 5 months, 9 days
|
Re: Why the Senate Should Not Confirm Samuel Alito [Re: Nox1]
#5233876 - 01/28/06 01:45 AM (18 years, 23 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Nox1 said: I will say this about the post two above this ...
If you think the ACLU wants to protect ALL religions ... I have a used car you may want to buy ... it has low mileage, good tires, doesn't burn oil, really clean, and is cheap.
Nox
I KNOW they want to protect all religions. I've been a member most of my life, and I understand their thought process.
The only time they have the perception of attacking religion is when the Government shows religious favoritism. Given that we have religious freedom in America, they are absolutely correct in stopping this.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
MisterMyco
Myco-fanatic


Registered: 12/08/05
Posts: 636
Last seen: 17 years, 11 months
|
Re: Why the Senate Should Not Confirm Samuel Alito [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
#5233886 - 01/28/06 01:54 AM (18 years, 23 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said: I KNOW they want to protect all religions. I've been a member most of my life, and I understand their thought process.
The only time they have the perception of attacking religion is when the Government shows religious favoritism. Given that we have religious freedom in America, they are absolutely correct in stopping this.
Kind of off topic here, but could a ACLU near-life member tell me why they've done so much for the first, fourth and fifth amendements, but not ever stood up for the second?
-------------------- "I have never, in all my life, not for one moment, been tempted toward religion of any kind. The fact is that I feel no spiritual void. I have my philosophy of life, which does not include any aspect of the supernatural." Isaac Asimov
|
Nox1
Stranger
Registered: 01/25/06
Posts: 22
Last seen: 18 years, 3 days
|
Re: Why the Senate Should Not Confirm Samuel Alito [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
#5234814 - 01/28/06 10:41 AM (18 years, 23 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said: I KNOW they want to protect all religions. I've been a member most of my life, and I understand their thought process.
While this MAY have been true in the past ... I severely doubt it is the case today. Example ... why is the menorah NOT a religious symbol but a cross is?
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:The only time they have the perception of attacking religion is when the Government shows religious favoritism. Given that we have religious freedom in America, they are absolutely correct in stopping this.
If this is true ... show me the SINGULAR example where the ACLU has attacked a school district for having a Muslim day.
Nox
--------------------
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 5 months, 9 days
|
Re: Why the Senate Should Not Confirm Samuel Alito [Re: MisterMyco]
#5235404 - 01/28/06 01:59 PM (18 years, 23 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
MisterMyco said: Kind of off topic here, but could a ACLU near-life member tell me why they've done so much for the first, fourth and fifth amendements, but not ever stood up for the second?
Excellent question. Because there are already plenty of other very powerful organizations protecting the 2nd Amendment.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 5 months, 9 days
|
Re: Why the Senate Should Not Confirm Samuel Alito [Re: Nox1]
#5235448 - 01/28/06 02:11 PM (18 years, 23 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Nox1 said: While this MAY have been true in the past ... I severely doubt it is the case today. Example ... why is the menorah NOT a religious symbol but a cross is?
ACLU challenges menorah display at Capitol
Quote:
If this is true ... show me the SINGULAR example where the ACLU has attacked a school district for having a Muslim day.
Can you show me an example of a school district having a Muslim day in the first place? I'm not familiar with that.
|
Ancalagon
AgnosticLibertarian

Registered: 07/30/02
Posts: 1,364
Last seen: 15 years, 8 days
|
Re: Why the Senate Should Not Confirm Samuel Alito [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
#5235533 - 01/28/06 02:50 PM (18 years, 23 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
MisterMyco said: Kind of off topic here, but could a ACLU near-life member tell me why they've done so much for the first, fourth and fifth amendements, but not ever stood up for the second?
Excellent question. Because there are already plenty of other very powerful organizations protecting the 2nd Amendment.
Anyone protecting the 9th and 10th Amendments? Anyone even know they exist?
-------------------- ?When Alexander the Great visted the philosopher Diogenes and asked whether he could do anything for him, Diogenes is said to have replied: 'Yes, stand a little less between me and the sun.' It is what every citizen is entitled to ask of his government.? -Henry Hazlitt in 'Economics in One Lesson'
|
Redstorm
Prince of Bugs



Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 3 months, 29 days
|
Re: Why the Senate Should Not Confirm Samuel Alito [Re: Nox1]
#5235651 - 01/28/06 03:35 PM (18 years, 23 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Nox1 said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said: I KNOW they want to protect all religions. I've been a member most of my life, and I understand their thought process.
While this MAY have been true in the past ... I severely doubt it is the case today. Example ... why is the menorah NOT a religious symbol but a cross is?
Crosses or menorahs can be presented in a holiday presentation, as long as they are accmpanied with secular items as well. The Supreme Court ruled on this.
|
Nox1
Stranger
Registered: 01/25/06
Posts: 22
Last seen: 18 years, 3 days
|
Re: Why the Senate Should Not Confirm Samuel Alito [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
#5236431 - 01/28/06 08:31 PM (18 years, 22 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said: Can you show me an example of a school district having a Muslim day in the first place? I'm not familiar with that.
http://www.cultureandfamily.org/articledisplay.asp?id=410&department=CFI&categoryid=cfreport
Nox
--------------------
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 5 months, 9 days
|
Re: Why the Senate Should Not Confirm Samuel Alito [Re: Nox1]
#5238340 - 01/29/06 12:11 PM (18 years, 22 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Nox1 said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said: Can you show me an example of a school district having a Muslim day in the first place? I'm not familiar with that.
http://www.cultureandfamily.org/articledisplay.asp?id=410&department=CFI&categoryid=cfreport
Nox
First of all, that article wasn't about a "Muslim Day". If there were such a thing, I'm fairly confident the ACLU would be against it.
Secondly, the article was written by a religious freak, whose opinions are so biased he's out of touch with reality. - He's pissed that Christianity is being taught on an equal level with other religions. - He's pissed that middle school history includes the negative aspects of Christianity. - He's pissed because he thinks that teaching Islamic history will convert kids to Muslim.
This case was brought to court in 2003 and the ruling was in favor of the school district. It was appealed, and in 2005 the decision was upheld. Teaching kids about Islam and Chrisianity as part of history is not unconstitutional. Trying to convert them in a public school would be.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
newuser1492
Registered: 06/12/03
Posts: 3,104
|
Re: Why the Senate Should Not Confirm Samuel Alito [Re: Ancalagon]
#5238457 - 01/29/06 12:48 PM (18 years, 22 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Ancalagon said: Anyone protecting the 9th and 10th Amendments? Anyone even know they exist?
|
MisterMyco
Myco-fanatic


Registered: 12/08/05
Posts: 636
Last seen: 17 years, 11 months
|
Re: Why the Senate Should Not Confirm Samuel Alito [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
#5239053 - 01/29/06 03:39 PM (18 years, 22 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said: Excellent question. Because there are already plenty of other very powerful organizations protecting the 2nd Amendment.
So your position is that the ACLU does care about firearms rights, but they just don't have the time to persue it? Nothing in their website says this, maybe you could link me?
-------------------- "I have never, in all my life, not for one moment, been tempted toward religion of any kind. The fact is that I feel no spiritual void. I have my philosophy of life, which does not include any aspect of the supernatural." Isaac Asimov
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 5 months, 9 days
|
Re: Why the Senate Should Not Confirm Samuel Alito [Re: MisterMyco]
#5243379 - 01/30/06 06:33 PM (18 years, 20 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
MisterMyco said: So your position is that the ACLU does care about firearms rights, but they just don't have the time to persue it? Nothing in their website says this, maybe you could link me?
Sorry, I should have been more clear. They care about firearms rights to the extent that they are protected by the constitution as determined by the Supreme Court. They do not support gun control rights beyond that.
ACLU POLICY
"The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms."
IN BRIEF
The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns.
Most opponents of gun control concede that the Second Amendment certainly does not guarantee an individual's right to own bazookas, missiles or nuclear warheads. Yet these, like rifles, pistols and even submachine guns, are arms.
The question therefore is not whether to restrict arms ownership, but how much to restrict it. If that is a question left open by the Constitution, then it is a question for Congress to decide.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 8 months
|
Re: Why the Senate Should Not Confirm Samuel Alito [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
#5243445 - 01/30/06 06:46 PM (18 years, 20 days ago) |
|
|
In other words, they don't.
--------------------
|
|