Yep, no bias in media...check.

So, should I start a thread on personal rights and which 'party' is the biggest threat to them? We can leave the second amendment in or out, but you might want to leave it in - you might be surprised at my viewpoint on this - I grew up with guns, my family hunts, and my family has quite the military background.

I adore good fiction - recommend away - I am almost done with the most current nightstand reading I have (a hilarious book called the Egyptologist). I could use something with a little more 'meat' this time...
 
So, should I start a thread on personal rights and which 'party' is the biggest threat to them?
Seems like you're the one itching for an argument, not me...but no, I'm satisfied pointing out the hypocrisy and leaving it at that. Wherever the Republicans or Democrats want to harm the Constitution, they're wrong.

Sending PM for book reference.
 
OK, Shag, except, the first amendment is pretty broad - freedom of religion for instance. Your religion might believe certain things that my religion does not - so your 'circle of freedom' might interfere with my 'circle of freedom'. What do we do in those cases - I agree that we can look for other amendments to help define certain instances - but, the first amendment is very broad (for a very good reason). And the ninth - well - whew... And if you are a constitutional attorney - can you please tell us - I will concede right now..:)

If I were an attorney, I would probably be a constitutional attorney, as that is an area of strong interest for me.

I don't wanna get into a discussion that will distract from this thread, but the 1st amendment is pretty clear, with regards to religion. Just look at the intention of the framers, the historical context and how it was understood by the general populace at the time it was passed, and it's meaning becomes pretty clear.

As to the broader claim of Republicans wanting to take away constitutional freedoms, ect, ect, I will direct you to this thread that discussed some of this earlier this year.
 
I agree too that both parties attack our personal rights - once again, you choose your battles, and back the party that you see as keeping the rights that are important to you. Although, I am with you, the libertarians have the most interesting platform (however Barr...).

I really wish we had more viable choices in this election.
 
The libertarian's have a ...questionable... understanding of the constitution.
 
Shag, well, I would expand that to say that libertarian's have a 'questionable' understanding of many things - but, their platform makes for very interesting reading.

Oh, did you just add the link? I will go explore later...

I find it odd that this site doesn't have little 'modified' indicators, unless you post something in the 'reason' window. I guess that is why all the 'quoting'... weird.
 
I'd like to hear from Shag on the the questionability of the Libertarians' views on the Constitution as well. I assume you mean the party platform, not libertarians with a small 'l.'

Oh, yeah, fox, you don't have to put a reason in there when you edit.
 
I am basing that comment on a couple of hardcore libertarian's I know who are devout athiet's as well, and have a flawed understanding of the constitution with regards to the "separation of church and state". Supposedly, all (or most of) our founding father's were athiest's or diest's according to them, and Christianity played no role in the founding of this nation. History doesn't support their view.

Libertarians also apply to overly broad interpretations of the constitution that are not accurate or realistic. Look at their constitutional justification for abortion, or a "right to choose".

They are more concerned with promoting an ideology (as does modern liberalism) rather then interpreting the constitution accurately. "Re -interpreting" the constitution is a means to impose their agenda.
 
Thanks for clarifying, Shag.

I know the Libertarians are more or less against realpolitik, but they tend to be very strongly on the side of personal civil liberties, so it's hard for me to avoid identifying myself with them.

I guess I should form my own party.
 
Libertarian Platform...

1.4 Abortion

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.
 
Oh, Foss, so, if you don't label your 'edits' then you can 'stealth' edit?
 
Oh, Foss, so, if you don't label your 'edits' then you can 'stealth' edit?
There's a time frame involved. The posts here used to be marked as edited a few years back. But that's changed, probably with one of the upgrades.
 
I am not totally losing my mind - I would read a post, and then and hour later it would change. With no 'edit' line I had just assumed that it had finally happened, all those blond moments (OK, if you want to burn me on stereotyping blonds - go ahead, I have ash blond hair) had caught up with me...
 
Ahhh... well I will probably continue to label my edits - in the spirit of fairness...

Shag - as far as the 'framers' of the Constitution, I believe it is pretty much considered that Madison was most responsible for the 1st amendment, its content, its 'make-up'. Morris, Randolf, Sherman, and the others - certainly had input, but if you 'read' the constitution, and then compare it to Madison's other work - it pretty much marches with Madison's views.

Madison - "Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience, or that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform.

Well, at least I was close - I detected certainly a 'passion' for constitutional law:)
 
But only up to a certain time limit. I think it's 30 minutes unless you're a moderator and then you have carte blanche.

The site still tells you when a post was edited. Mine always shows, no matter when I edit it. 99.9% of the time it is for spelling reasons.

foxpaws shows up as edited. Depends on how soon you edit, and yes, there is a timeframe.
 
And let's not forget that the Framers were not necessarily unified in all their beliefs. Americans want to hang on to this myth that they were all of the same mind when writing the Constitution, but that is not so. It was highly contentious. Even Franklin said something to the effect of (and I'm paraphrasing big-time here from memory): "This thing is far from perfect but it'll have to do."
 
And let's not forget that the Framers were not necessarily unified in all their beliefs. Americans want to hang on to this myth that they were all of the same mind when writing the Constitution, but that is not so. It was highly contentious. Even Franklin said something to the effect of (and I'm paraphrasing big-time here from memory): "This thing is far from perfect but it'll have to do."
Yes yes, we've already covered that in the Mick Jagger/Fredflash thread.

But your statement begs the scientific question:

So what?
 
gotta link Foss? - Jagger/Fredflash - there seems to be some trashing of John Adams - but, that isn't it - is it?
 
So, the Supreme court did what it is suppose to - not make law - but uphold the law in the Heller case. For the most part - leaving interpretation out of the 2nd Amendment.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ." So, Shag "interpreting the constitution accurately" does that 'interpreting' apply to only certain amendments?
 
Shag - as far as the 'framers' of the Constitution, I believe it is pretty much considered that Madison was most responsible for the 1st amendment, its content, its 'make-up'. Morris, Randolf, Sherman, and the others - certainly had input, but if you 'read' the constitution, and then compare it to Madison's other work - it pretty much marches with Madison's views.

Madison - "Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience, or that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform.

Madison is only one man. He did not make the constitution into the law of the land. from May 25 to September 17, 1787, the constitution was heavily debated, modified, and eventually ratified by the Philadelphia Conventon, which had fifty of the brightest minds of the era workin on it. They had to come to some sort of agreement on the constitution. Then it was ratified by the various states, after a vigorous campaign (including much public debate). The constitution, including the various parts and their meanings were throughly vetted and commonly understood by the majority of society at the time.

In fact, this is the basic debate between original intent and original meaning. I tend to subscribe to the "original meaning" view. You have a much broader textual base and better understanding of what the various parts of the constitution mean.
 
And let's not forget that the Framers were not necessarily unified in all their beliefs. Americans want to hang on to this myth that they were all of the same mind when writing the Constitution, but that is not so.

Not an issue under an "original meaning" approach to interpreting the constitution.
 
Back on topic, an op-ed piece about media bias.

And the poll (groan) cited in the article.

Some interesting numbers from the poll: (1) 19% of Democrats believe most reporters are trying to help Obama, versus 18% of Democrats who believe most reporters are trying to help McCain, and (2) "Unaffiliated voters by a 53% to 10% margin see reporters trying to help Obama."

You can fool some of the people some of the time, but most Americans can see right through the bias.
 

Members online

Back
Top