POST SCRIPTS

Maybe . . . . . something better?
Just because we live in the greates country on earth doesn't mean there isn't room for improvement.
A wise man once posted this to my blog:

Because of ever increasing corruption and erosion of every decent principle that made this country great America is on the verge of a revolution. I believe some day soon the American people are going to rise up. They are going to say enough and the crooks and cowards in Congress are going to be tossed out!

There is definitely room for improvement, sir! I submit to you that if we don't work to improve it nonviolently . . . . . . .

What Quentin? Go on...

Perhaps you could start by telling us what sort of America you would be willing to fight for.

I'd be willing to fight for the same America the founding fathers fought for, Nick.

Really?

Because I would too. Personally, I'm willing to fight for the America we have now as well.

I'm just surprised you would be.

I don't mean that derogatorily...

Its just that you appear to be a little more interventionist for them.

They seemed to be far more capitalist then yourself.

Now before we have to hear about how I clearly don't understand the founders, I might add that I have read the Constitution, the Deceleration of Independence, the Federalist papers, the Anti Federalist papers, etc. etc. And I don't see allot of government bail outs, or social security, or welfare, or socialized medicine.

I do see a great deal of emphasis on morales, personal responsibility, respect for private property etc.

I'm thrilled that we may actually have some common ground on something...but I'm not so sure we do just yet.

You Quentin "Fight?" Whoa, hold on a sec... aren't you more suited for armchair quarterbacking?

Why would you be willing to "fight" any kind of "America" if you aren't willing to fight for the America we live in?

It's funny to me that one (Quentin) who has not fought for our country is telling one (Nick)who is fighting as we speak for our country, what sort of "America" is worthy of his (Quentin) being prevailed upon to lift a finger for our country...Nice!

Anyone who thinks Nick is "Fighting for America" has been fooled. Nick is fighting for private enterprise.

What's funny to me is that there are still so many who just don't get it.

Nick, your problem isn't that you don't know the founding fathers, it's that you don't know me. You have no idea of the service I have given.

You have your preconceived notions that prevent you from reading what I'm writing. You have this concept of me in your head and you're unable to see past your own preconceptions. We all do it. You, more than others.
Son, as you mature, take the time to educate yourself as to what kind of government you serve--without prejudice.
Would that we could work together for a better America, but alas, right now you sound no different that the Tories of yesteryear.

You took an oath to defend The Constitution and you're too blind to recognize the war you're fighting is unconstitutional! Show me where--with all that reading you say you've done--the authority is for this war!

You've got let's-bribe-the-####-out-of-Congress-so-no-one-can-compete-with-us confused with capitalism.
Son, I am a capitalist. I'm also a Christian who does not believe in taking undue advantage of my fellow citizens in order to make a buck--THAT is not to be confused with capitalism either.

Frankly, I am appalled at your ignorance, but again, maybe you'll grow out of it.

Marie, you too, misread what I wrote. How did you get 'prevailed upon' out of what I posted?
Damn.

Quentin said, "Just because we live in the greates country on earth doesn't mean there isn't room for improvement."

This is always true...the question is what kind of improvement? That is what we discuss here every day, Barack Obama's inane statement notwithsatanding.

"I'd be willing to fight for the same America the founding fathers fought for, Nick."

That's a pretty safe pedestal to judge and preach from since our country is not, in this day and age, going to be as it was at the founding. We stand on the shoulders of those who have gone before us for better and for worse. We begin from right now; resistance to that fact is futile.

"Anyone who thinks Nick is 'Fighting for America' has been fooled. Nick is fighting for private enterprise."

Oh the horror...fighting for something that allows people to eat and have adequate housing and transportaion, to enjoy clean water and flush toilets and to send their children to school, etc. Yes I can see how you might think that is a terrible thing to defend. Nobody wants those things!

Defending our nation is defending our way of life. It is not some lofty ideal gleened from a book/ Our system of government isn't perfect but the freedoms we enjoy because of it also made private enterprise possible. Private enterprise made living this good life possible. I dare you to attempt to live a life free from the blessings of private enterprise...what comforts and conveniences will you deny yourself to be consistant with your your lofty judgement? How willing are you to live, right now, in the mud, human waste, and disease that a world with "no enterprise" would contain?

"Son, I am a capitalist. I'm also a Christian who does not believe in taking undue advantage of my fellow citizens in order to make a buck--THAT is not to be confused with capitalism either."

Private enterprise is made up of human beings, just like the university, the legal profession, and government. As a professed Christian you should expect that people involved in all of these will sometimes do illegal or immoral things. That is what our legal system is for. It is also what our right to free speech and our voting rights are about.

Are you as hard on yourself in this incredible "need" for everything to live up to your perfect standard or is it just everyone and everything else? Frankly I'm appalled at your arrogance and I fear, as someone with such a high perch, there is little chance that you will "grow" out of it.

I realize that the tactic of using "son" is supposed to convey to the reader that a person of experience and education is speaking to someone of ignorance and inexperience.

What would be far more effective in this discourse is for you to give us some specifics instead of merely giving us platitude after platitude.

As far as the unconstitutionality of this war, I have actually researched this question, and found that no...It is Constitutional.

Here is why.

We determine the Constitutionality of something based essentially off of two things.

1. The wording

2. How subjective wording was practically applied, by the people who wrote it.

So when the Constitution says nay to "cruel and unusual punishment" A logical person takes that to mean what it wold have meant at the time of its writing, not what popular culture determines it means today.

So clearly the death penalty was not cruel and unusual, according to the founders since it was applied at the Federal level for treason. And further evidence is that every state also had a death penalty.

So now moving on to discussing the authorization to use force.

Many people, (wrongly in my opinion) use as justification for our current war the example of the war powers act, and the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. Stating a kind of "Stare Decisis" argument.

A far more appropriate argument comes at the question from two angles. The language and the historical example of the wars against the Barbary Pirates.

No where does the Constitution prevent the Commander in Chief from using the military to defend the country. The Constitution states that the President is the commander in Chief of the military, but only congress has the power to declare war. And only congress has the ability to fund both the military and military operations.

Now a strict interpretation of this could be taken to mean that only congress can authorize the use of force, even though the language is NOT that specific. Unfortunately for those who would use that argument, the wars against the Barbary Pirates makes for a strong argument for those who would say that there is more latitude.

The United States fought the wars against the Barbary Pirates at a time when many signers of the constitution were still with us. There was no deceleration of war, yet congress approved of using force, passed the funds to expand the navy and launch military strikes against the Barbary Pirates, to include a land invasion and the raising of an indigenous army to capture the Tripolitan city or Derna.

Yet from my readings I can not find any significant arguments brought up, that the war was unconstitutional.

Now perhaps you could answer a question from poor inexperienced, uneducated, little ole me.

Given the wording and the historical context, should I believe that you have a better handle on the Constitution, or should I go with those who were around to write it?

In addition, I guess you have now determined that those who fought in the Barbary Pirate wars were also unconstitutional and simply fighting for "free enterprise".

Essentially, we state that someone is fighting for the Constitution as long as the war is constitutional, which the current one clearly is, if we apply the same standards that the founders did.

Next time Quentin, I would highly suggest that you infuse less inferences to your love for the constitution and display a little more knowledge of its wording and context if you wish to be taken for the Constitutional scholar you seem to feel you are.

I have no problem with you trying to make the argument about my youth and ignorance. I am quite capable of defending my positions. And I feel quite certain that where as I have laid out the basis for my positions, clearly and succinctly, and have presented my arguments in a logical framework for to others to agree with or challenge; you have insisted on simply referring to us as nuts, or intoxicated, or idiots, or pagans, all the while insisting that you are the keeper of true knowledge and understanding.

Well how about you refrain from the malicious and VERIFIABLY untrue attacks for just a second and lay some truth on us Quentin. You have been careful so far to attack everything but defend nothing.

As far as your view of Capitalism. You have never stated what you believe capitalism is or how it should be applied, so I am not ready to accept that you know what you are talking about. I have stated several times what I believe capitalism to be, as defined by Adam Smith, Milton Friedman, Thomas Sowell, Fredrick Hyaeck, etc.

I have found that you believe that your personal definitions of things should trump the ones presented by the people who coined the phrase, so I would like to hear your definition before accepting your word.

As far as Christianity. I find it interesting that you claim Christianity after telling all of us that you had never seen one around here. (I can show you your post if you like). I should have known that you excluded yourself from this comment.

As far as "not knowing you". Well you could be right there. Yet you feel perfectly willing to make claims about me based off of a similar level of knowledge.

I do feel I know enough to state this however.

1. If Quentin has the power to shut down debate in order to prevent someone else's opinion from being heard...he will. Because you have done it to me on your blog site.

2. Quentin will make claims about peoples service and character which are verifiably untrue in an attempt to discredit them. Because you have done this to me on this blog site.

3. Quentin displays no sense of propriety when attempting to make a point. Again your claims that apparently no one is a Christian except your self, and telling a concerned father that "You hope his son doesn't need to die, to see that the war is wrong" display a level of impropriety that is shameless. I have no problem with sarcasm and even insults, but we try to keep it on a certain level. you have demonstrated that there is very little off limits when you are trying to make a point, no matter how tacky and unsubstantiated it is.

Quentin ill make you the same deal I made Libby.

I will put the sarcasm and insults aside. I will assume that when you present an argument that I disagree with, that your intentions are honorable, but that we simply disagree on procedure.

Are you willing to do the same for us?

Now I realize I was pretty sarcastic in that last response, so if you want to fire back, well call that getting even and well move on from there.

The question is, are you ineterested?

Or do you prefer the kind of discourse we have engaged in thus far?

"So when the Constitution says nay to "cruel and unusual punishment" A logical person takes that to mean what it would have meant at the time of its writing, not what popular culture determines it means today."

What did I tell you all about Nick harking back to grislier times?

Dude, we have evolved a little since then. Not much, mind you, but a little. And we ain't goin' back.

I'm sorry Libby

What parts of the Constitution would you change?

And if you would change anything, would you do so through the Constitutional process, or just throw it all out?

Do you believe that we should interpret legal questions within the context and language in which they were adopted, or do you think that the court should get to determine their limitations based off of a judges perception of "evolving cultural standards"?

As far as the term "grislier", could you tell us how you come to this conclusion?

And can you give us your solution for how we avoid "grisly" arrangements in the future.

Or were you just making chit chat?

Because it would seem that the document which has been the foundation for the system of government which has allowed for the greatest amount of freedom and prosperity for all races, colors and creeds, genders, religious preferences etc. is at least worth a little study before we drastically change or alter it.

Furthermore, you keep suggesting that I am implying that we completely go back to the founding times. Can you please show me where I have said that, or are you mistakenly inferring it for another reason?

If you are in fact unaware of me ever suggesting that we return to a time of chattel slavery and an absence of womens suffrage, then why do you insist on repeating the baseless charge?

I might also add that not all forward advancement is good, and that in order to move forward in a positive fashion, we must adopt those things form the past that were beneficial rather than simply destroying it all as "the past".

But again, all of this would be far more easier to discuss if you would clarify your position on the Constitution.

You gotta do some thinking about the nature of a "constitution." It lays out principles, not strictures. If the meaning of "cruel and unusual" evolves over time to disallow the death penalty, then that's how it will be.

You know, most of Europe, Canada, and a good deal of South America do without it ... and have no more grisly social upheavals than we do.

The verdict is in and I find on behalf of Libby!

"The Constitution is like a living document." Supreme Court Justice, Ruth Bader Ginsberg.

Justic Ginsberg said the Constitution evolves and therefore it must be compared to the newest and highest international standards.

Ms. Ginsburg has been one of the strongest supporters of comparativism, which you may know is the examination of other countries' laws in order to understand more fully what are taken to be essential rights or fundamental cultural convictions in our own country.

A key case involving comparativism was 2005's Roper v. Simmons, in which a precarious 5-4 margin determined executing minors to be unconstitutional. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote a brilliant opinion when he compared the behavior of the United States against those of other countries, noting that an execution of a minor is extremely rare and should be considered cruel and unsual.

Capital punishment in general is cruel and unusual and it should be abolished.

Consuelo
Attorney-To-Be
Cal Northern School of Law
"Consequitur quodcunque petit"

Libby says, "What did I tell you all about Nick harking back to grislier times? *** Dude, we have evolved a little since then. Not much, mind you, but a little. And we ain't goin' back."

We may have "evolved" a little since then but the world is sill one in which grisly acts of violence still occur (and I'm not sure that being more civilized on the whole amounts to "evolution") We have witnessed in our own country children taken from their beds, sexually abused, buried alive and God knows what else. We have watched on television as tall buildings were deliberately flown into in order to kill as many people as possible and destroy the economy ofthe world. We have seen that people are capable of brutile genocide. We witnessed the beheading of Daniel Pearl. We saw a black man dragged behind a truck until dead. Just last week a man on a bus in Canada took out a knife, stabbed a nearby passenger and then proceeded to cut his head off and hold it aloft. Cruel and unusual? Punishment must suit the crim in order to have equity under the law. Punishments are made more severe asthe crime becomes more unacceptable or brutal. If a man receives the same penalty for killing his spouse as one who would rape and bury a child alive what is to stop men of low morals to slip into abject brutality at will? If the law is not designed to act as a deterent as well as a punishment for our evil propensiies then what good is it really in a civilized society?

"You gotta do some thinking about the nature of a "constitution." It lays out principles, not strictures.

The Constitution is simple and profound. It is a context not a guideline. Laws are to be written so they are consistent with the Constitution. When they are not the Supreme Court is supposed to let us know we need to go back to the drawing board. We can then rewrite or toss it out altogether. The Supremes have oversteeped that boundary of late leading to the false premise that the Constitution is a "living " document.

If the meaning of "cruel and unusual" evolves over time to disallow the death penalty, then that's how it will be."

Unless a greater majority decides that changing it was a mistake. That little knife cuts both ways in our country.

"You know, most of Europe, Canada, and a good deal of South America do without it ... and have no more grisly social upheavals than we do."

Now there's a topic for discussion...thanks Libby. Singapore has very stringent and cruel punishment for even the slightest offenses and their cuntry is probably the safest in the world. That knife cuts both ways also.

Consuelo, welcome to Post Scripts!

I'm afraid on your first offering (to my knowledge) I must disagree with you and Justice Ginsberg:

"Justic Ginsberg said the Constitution evolves and therefore it must be compared to the newest and highest international standards."

The Constitution has remained the same with a few changes in the form of amendments. It is our laws that have "evolved" and that is as it should be with one caveat: laws should, as I said before, be consistent with the Constitution.

"Capital punishment in general is cruel and unusual and it should be abolished."

When human beings stop treating children in the grisly manner I mentioned in the above comment to Libby I'll go along with you. Until then a person who allows himself to stoop to a level that low deserves and should receive a fitting consequence. The law is not about our feelings and sympathies. It is not about understanding what makes a person do something like that. It is about suffering the consequences of our actions. It is about being held accounable and personally responsible for the outcome of the choices we make. It is a framework for civilization.

I do not have to adopt my neighbors customs in order to be friends with them. I do not need to make them do as I do in order to allow our children to play. I do not have to give up my individuality to have a conversation with you or go into business with you. This notion that the United States must become just like Canda or Europe in order to be fashionable or wordly is absurd.

Good luck with your career. I hope you will add your voice to our discussions often.

Libby I am afraid you have not answered the central point of my Question.

As far as you definition of the Constitution and its nature, I am very confused. If the Constitution is the law of the land, than how is it not "stricture"?

The question is not how we today interpret "cruel and unusual", the question is who should get to change the meaning of "cruel and unusual". I think it should be the people through their elected representatives. I am assuming that you think a judge should be permitted to do it. I'm also assuming that you believe a judge should be able to do it, provided that they agree with your position on the topic.

Consuelo and Libby

I am confused as to what you believe a "law" is.

If a law is nothing more than what Justice Ginsberg, or perhaps a different Judge in Europe or Paraguay believes it should be, then haven't you traded representative government for an oligarchy?

If for instance, tomorrow, Justice Ginsberg finds that the 1st Amendment doesn't include the right to assemble, would you accept this?

And if you would not except this decision, by what authority would you claim that she was wrong?

If as you both suggest, the Constitution is a "living" document, open to interpretation based off of feelings, than you are essentially saying that 9 members of the Supreme court are permitted to change it however they see fit.

I am assuming that you enjoy "comparativeism" right now, because of the current make up of the court.

Would you be as in favor of "comparativeism" if the court was made up entirely of conservative Justices? Or if instead of liberal courts, the court based decisions off of Sharia courts in Saudi Arabia?

If the answer is no, then haven't you just admitted the weakness in your judicial philosophy?

I prefer originalism for one very simple reason. If Justices are charged with interpreting the law based on how it was worded by our legislature, then the political persuasion of a Justice shouldn't matter, because they are limited to that which the wording states or can reasonably be interpreted to mean.

It puts judges in their proper place within our legal framework. If however you permit judges to rule based on their personal feelings, or the personal feelings of foreign judges, you are essentially giving them a level of power which trumps that of our elected bodies.

So again, in any method other than originalism, you give judges the authority to create law as they see fit. Which I can only imagine you truly support in a world where you feel the court leans in your favor. But that is not representative government, and I am afraid that you must choose which system you prefer.

Quentin you aren't going to let me off that easy are you?

I thought we had the makings of a good discussion.

Consuelo, I truly do hope you respond. I really enjoy discussing judicial philosophy, and I am sure that as a student you will have a unique perspective on such a topic.

I would also add that this site features some people who have seen the inside of a court house quite a few times (not in the defendants chair), and they would probably be more than happy to share their experiences with you.

So I do encourage you to come back and debate or just discuss those legal issues which interest you.

I think it would be mutually beneficial.

Take care, and good luck in your career.

Nick: Would you be as in favor of "comparativeism" if the court was made up entirely of conservative Justices?

I do not think that conservative Justices would take it up, would they? This is the point. It is, after all, a liberal principle.

Nick: So again, in any method other than originalism, you give judges the authority to create law as they see fit.

Not "create" ... interpret ... as you say, earlier in your post. To interpret the law is their job. And they, living now and not 200 years ago, interpret the law based on knowledge and experience accumlated during those 200 years. I really do not see how it can be avoided.

Nick: But that is not representative government, and I am afraid that you must choose which system you prefer.

It most certainly is. They are our third branch. You remember: Executive, Legislative, Judicial. They do the judicial thing. And they're certainly not perfect with it: Bush v. Gore, for instance.

But Nick, we're not going to abolish the institution just cause you don't like Roe v. Wade and I don't like Bush v. Gore.

Not much has changed since Ambrose Bierce's definition of a lawyer long ago as a person skilled in ways to circumvent the law.

Libby, interpretation of the law, if meant to mean, anything that 9 justices determine, is not representative government. How could it be?

Libby: "I do not think that conservative Justices would take it up, would they? This is the point. It is, after all, a liberal principle."

I think you missed my point. My point was that a philosophy for interpreting law should transcend politics.

You are essentially in favor of a judicial philosophy which means that a justice is permitted to "interpret" something to mean 180 degrees, from what the legislature intended.

I think you will be hard pressed to find a Founder that was in favor of such a judicial philosophy.

I am really confused here Libby. Can you not see the problem with allowing such an philosophy?

Just because it is our third branch does not mean that it is incapable of stepping outside its bounds.

And I don't believe that I have suggested that we abolish the branch, so why even bring that up Libby?

Please answer my question...If the court was made up entirely of conservatives, would you still endorse a "living constitution" subject to ANY interpretation the justices decided.

Or would you prefer one where justices were limited to interpreting the constitution based off of the language used, or the practical application of subjective language used.

Your statements suggest that the court should be permitted to decide issues that the constitution does not cover.

In representative government, your representatives in the legislature get to make laws. That is the appropriate way to change the constitution if you feel that we have "evolved" on a particular issue.

By ceding this right to the court you have circumvented the democratic process by allowing an unelected body to decide for you.

Thomas Jefferson thought of this as judicial tyranny.

I am afraid that logic will not permit a contradiction. So you must choose one or the other.

Either you prefer a judicial philosophy whereby the judicial branch is permitted to determine what the laws mean by whatever method they see fit. In which case, the judicial branch is now the sole arbiter of all law.

Or you prefer a method by which justices are limited to interpreting the law based off of the wording used, or the practical application of the subjective wording.

The first method is oligarchic.

The second method is democratic.

neither will produce the results you want every time. But one philosophy sees it self as an objective body that is there to determine the meaning of a law based off of the wording the legislature assigned to it.

The other is a subjective body which is permitted to rewrite law as they think it should have been.

Libby I am afraid that you understand the problem, but are uncomfortable with the decision that you have to make as a result.

If your answer is that you would not care for comparativism if the justices based their decisions off of Sharia courts in Saudi Arabia, then you must concede that the philosophy should not be applied to any form of foreign law to which the American people have not had a say through their elected representatives. And therefore reject comparativism as a legitimate way to decide a case.

If you do not approve of a "living constitution" as it applies to the judiciary, if the court were comprised of 9 Justice Scalias', then you must also reject it if it were made up of 9 Justice Ginsbergs'.

The only method which appears to make sense is an originalist approach, which understands that the judiciary has a very important but limited role, as do the other 2 branches.

Remember, that there is a legitimate, and illegitimate method to change the constitution. The legislature is permitted to radically change the constitution provided it goes through the appropriate process (State legislatures included).

The Judiciary is not ever permitted in the constitution to change ANYTHING about the constitution.

Plus the fatal flaw in your argument is this. You state that the constitution should "evolve" by judicial fiat, yet if that is so, and the constitution is nothing more than a national suggestion, then why must I be compelled upon to support or respect the decision of the Supreme Court.

To which your response will almost certainly be "Because it...is....in...the Constitution.

Do you see my point?

Nick;
THIS is why I don't respond to you as much as you'd like:
"1. If Quentin has the power to shut down debate in order to prevent someone else's opinion from being heard...he will. Because you have done it to me on your blog site."
That was over a year-and-a-half ago!! And you're still not over it! Wow.
For the record: I cut off your responses because you were repeating yourself and others. Further, your comments tend to stray FAR off the subject matter--as they have here.
"3. . . . . . .and telling a concerned father that "You hope his son doesn't need to die, to see that the war is wrong" display a level of impropriety that is shameless."

How?

If it is, as you say, shameless, then you would have to know what was in my head when I wrote it.
You don't know what I was thinking.
Therefore, you're wrong--again!
But why should today be different?
I truly hope you don't have to die. I truly hope your dad doesn't have to bury you. I truly hope your little girl doesn't have to lose her father fighting for oil.
Deal with it.

Quentin, this is not the first time your words have sickened me as a reader, but I cannot sit in silent shock this time...

You ARE "shameless!" Your responses and wording have already PROVEN IT! Nobody needs to be inside your head to take your full meaning in these comments.

You are implying that Nick may NEED to DIE, that his father may NEED to bury him, and His children may NEED to lose their father. All just so that we all will finally be persuaded that you are right and this war is purely for oil and private enterprise...

Your comments here offer all of the insight into your head we as the readers will ever need in order to see just what type of person you are.
You have obviously made up your mind that you are the only one with a true baring on reality and the rest of us have not studied or are far too ignorant to "get it".

We have far more to lose than you do at the prospect of being right... How could you really think that we have not researched for our own security sake?

You toy with the idea of soldiers dying simply to drive your point home!

Being forced to tell my children that their daddy is never coming back is a real fear that I as a military wife have to deal with every single day of a deployment!
Your willingness to use the death of a soldier so flippantly as attempt to bolster your argument, with no care or concern at all, tells me all I need to know about the quality of your character!

You most certainly did not "mean well" when you sent that email to Nicks Father, nor do you mean well now... Stop pretending that you said it with empathy out of sincere regard!

You are obviously holding out a hope that Nick indeed will die, and as a result his three children will be so damaged by his death that they will be launched firmly into your camp. For the "Greater Good" as it were... You'd be right there wouldn't you Quinten; wringing your hands with excitement at the opportunity to tell them all about how their Daddy died in vain. Just another brainwashed robot doing whatever he was sent to do for private enterprise and oil... I'm sure you'd be calling his boy "son" in same condescending manor you did his Daddy, desperately trying to establish your Dominance.

I get this view of you from you snide comments which you've posted all over this blog site...

You've made yourself heard loud and clear! So if you really want any of us to believe that we "just don't understand you," you should either start being genuine or get a better handle on your your ability to convey your real meaning!

You enjoy a degree of looseness with your words on this site which I'd venture to say, you would not dare to utter in person...

And to think there are little clones of you running around everywhere too full of your own importance to care who you hurt with you flagrant disregard for tact!

I would rather my husband be fighting for private enterprise and oil than your sorry excuse for an existence! But its not up to me, lucky you... So your welcome for that freedom of speech Quinten...

Now I must go tuck my children into bed and be thankful that tonight, I won't have to tell them that their Daddy is never coming home... Much to your chagrin I am quite certain!

Quentin

You must realize what you have just done to your credibility.

You ignored the very questions concerning the constitutionality of the war in order to post that comment.

I can only assume that you were incapable of "dealing with it" when it came to the argument presented concerning the constitutional legitimacy of the war.

So instead you resorted to the comments you did.

Furthermore, you may be correct when i called you comments shameless. That was a description I offered concerning what I determined your feelings to be. Perhaps you were "shameful" when writing them, but that doesn't appear to make a great deal of sense. I wouldn't have assumed that someone would feel a great deal of shame while making such a comment, and still choose to write it.

I still maintain however, that they are "tacky and unsubstantiated" which is of course my own analysis of the value of your comments, and therefore subjective to my own findings.

I think I have a better understanding of the whole "Whats inside Quentin's head" defense. But I'm not sure its all that relevant to most of the topics you have commented on.

The process which is going on in your head is not as important to me as the conclusions you come to. The statements you make are very broad and full of analysis, to which we are offered no evidence in which to determine your thought process.

As far as my ability to "deal with it".

What exactly do you mean?

The possibility of death?

Well many have gone before me in far more dangerous circumstances to defend that which was dear to them, so I suppose dealing with that is incumbent upon me.

If you mean "deal with your analysis that the war is unconstitutional".

I did.

Its right in between the part where you refer to me as "son" and then tell me you hope my little girl doesn't have to bury her daddy because he died fighting for oil."

But interestingly enough, you asked for an explanation, received one, and then responded with something that greatly "strayed form the main topic".

Perhaps you were confused, but I don't want to make judgments concerning your thought process. So perhaps you could explain yourself more fully, by sticking to the question to which you demanded a response.

But by all means, continue your current genre if you believe it is doing a better job of conveying your feelings and thought process.

It certainly is providing a level of useful insight into your intellectual honesty and tact.

Well it appears that one is able to post comments now, but back in Dec 06 the ability to continue to debate on Quentin's site was temporarily suspended, after Quentin took the last word.

Which is his right as he is the administrator.

But Quentin has charged that my comments were repetitive.

Quentin: "For the record: I cut off your responses because you were repeating yourself and others. Further, your comments tend to stray FAR off the subject matter--as they have here."

I invite you to decide. (Dec 06 archives from the Uncomfortable truth)

You will also find it interesting that in that stream of posts, Quentin the capitalist advocates the nationalization of the energy industry.

Which leads me to believe, once again, that Quentin is somewhat confused on the principles of capitalism.

Again, I would not have to be "lead to believe" if Quentin would merely explain his definition of capitalism and what he believes to be an appropriate application, but so far such an explanation has not been forth coming.

And as Quentin has admitted to cutting off debate on his blog, I'm am sure that he will understand if I prefer to debate here, where all points of view are given a forum regardless of how "repetitive" they are.

P.S. Why would you cut off debate merely because it was repetitive. Wouldn't it be wiser to point out such a tactic, and expose the purveyor of it?

As far as straying Far from the point, could you please give me an example?

Nick: "And I don't believe that I have suggested that we abolish the branch, so why even bring that up Libby?"

Well if you don't, I'll be danged if I can figure out what that foot-and-a-half of post was about. (Quentin has a point there.)

Seemingly, you don't want the Supreme Court to do the job it was set up to do: ride herd over the other two branches, using our Constitution as their guide. Legal precedent has been evolving ever since we started making laws. I don't think this is going to stop just because the process worries you.

Libby, I am afraid that you keep making inferences about what I have said, instead of just answering the very direct questions I have asked.

Why is that?

Libby it is painfully obvious that the judicial branch should base their decisions off of the wording of the legislation, not what they think the legislation should have meant. The constitution serves as the ONLY rule book, by which the congress, executive AND judiciary are bound.

Your down right refusal to engage the questions I have brought up, and your insistence on making illogical inferences on the points I have presented all point to one answer.

You cannot defend your judicial philosophy.

I really don't understand Libby, I have gone to great lengths to make my questions and points as obvious as I know how.

The supreme court was established to ensure that the legislative branch or executive branch did not violate constitutional law.

But the entire concept of our legal process is that our representatives determine the law (for better or worse) based off of the constitutional process.

The Constitution does not give the Supreme Court the power to change or create new laws, based off of THEIR perception of good and bad.

WILL SOMEONE PLEASE TELL ME WHAT IS SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND ABOUT THIS CONCEPT?

Let me give this one more try...

Libby, if the supreme court was made up of me and 8 of my clones.

Would you still be in favor of a judicial philosophy where I get to determine what the law means regardless of the language used?

So if tomorrow I determined that in my opinion, freedom of speech no longer applied to left handed people.

You would of course support this decision because after all i am the supreme court.

the answer, (I'm answering for you, forgive me) is hell no you wouldn't!

You would yell and kick and scream and call me a fascist. you would say that no where in the constitution does it say that, and the constitution is there to protect us from inappropriate government intervention!

AND YOU WOULD BE RIGHT!

But unfortunately, you have adopted a viewpoint, which is neither supported by the constitution or logic, which states, that 9 justices are permitted to interpret a law 180 degrees differently than the understood meaning of the language used, in order to make it say what ever they want to.

It doesn't get any plainer than that Libby, and I have done my level best to make this as clear as I know how.

I might also add, that you fell right into the trap of using the constitution to undermine the constitution, just like I thought you would.

one min. you say that the constitution merely lays out principles (really because the right to a jury by trial, doesn't seem to be merely a principle to me). yet when I challenge the courts methods, you say that I must accept it because the constitution provides them this right.

Why Libby, why should I respect them if the Constitution only lays out principles?

Why is this so hard for you to accept? I'm am by no means suggesting that we decide constitutional questions form a conservative view point.

I am saying that we should decide them from an origanalist view point.

So if the law they are making a decision on is liberal in nature, then I don't believe the court has a right to make it conservative in nature in order to suit their political persuasion.

You are saying that they do so have this right.

If so...show me where and by what authority.

But here is the catch. You cant use the Constitution, because you have already insisted that the constitution can be determined anyway the court sees, so therefore it is not objectively binding.

So by what right does your court make its decisions Libby?

The people...nope, the justices are not elected.

By the constitution...nope, you have already insisted that this document holds no power greater than what the court assigns to it.

The legislature...nope they are not permitted to overrule the court.

The executive...nope they are not permitted to over rule the court either.

So by what right Libby?

Oh all right. And I bet I can do it in less than two feet.

Nick: ... it is painfully obvious that the judicial branch should base their decisions off of the wording of the legislation, not what they think the legislation should have meant.

If you disagreed with any given interpretation, you might believe this happened. If you agreed, you probably wouldn’t.

Nick: The Constitution does not give the Supreme Court the power to change or create new laws, based off of THEIR perception of good and bad.

If you disagreed with that particular interpretation, you might believe this happened. If you agreed, you probably wouldn’t.

Nick: Libby, if the supreme court was made up of me and 8 of my clones. Would you still be in favor of a judicial philosophy where I get to determine what the law means regardless of the language used?

But I live in fear and trembling of the Roberts Court each and every day. (No I don’t. We’ll survive.)

Nick: So if tomorrow I determined that in my opinion, freedom of speech no longer applied to left handed people. ... the answer, (I'm answering for you, forgive me) is hell no you wouldn't!

Fortunately, not even the opinion supporting Bush v. Gore was anything this silly. This kind of empty rhetoric is a waste of time, also space.

Nick: But unfortunately, you have adopted a viewpoint, which is neither supported by the constitution or logic, which states, ...

If you disagreed ... If you agreed, ....

Nick: I'm am by no means suggesting that we decide constitutional questions form a conservative view point. I am saying that we should decide them from an origanalist view point.

Sorry, I will not go back to being an unenfranchised chattel. Get over it.

Nick: So if the law they are making a decision on is liberal in nature, then I don't believe the court has a right to make it conservative in nature in ...

You said this three times already.

And then we moan some more about how the ol’ founding fathers set up the court. Doesn’t bother me any.

Libby, you have, for all intents and purposes, avoided reasonable debate on this topic.

You are literally attempting to tell me what I believe instead of addressing the questions.

I am not trying to be rude here but this is your second worst attempt at subterfuge. (The first was when you refused to admit that you were wrong when you stated that guerrilla warfare was a 100 year old tactic developed in South America)

But this is a close second.

Your refuse to acknowledge that the place to decide law is in the legislature.

You have literally avoided every question or point I have brought up, and insisted on accusing me of things which I have not done.

Let me give you an example. I don't like the idea of people defecating on and burning the American flag. But if the court were to decide today that such an act was Federally illegal, I would cry foul because I believe that that is Constitutionally protected speech. Which means that if I wanted to CHANGE that law, based off of DISAGREEMENT, than the place to do it would be through the LEGISLATURE, NOT the COURT.

So no, you are absolutely wrong. OK, you are completely of base. I do not base my approval or disapproval of a court decision on whether I approve of the law. I base my decision on whether or not the court followed the will of the people, based on their representatives, and restricted by existing Constitutional law.

DO YOU GET IT. It has nothing to do with how I personally feel about the law. If the law is constitutional, then the Court is OBLIGATED to obey it, not rewrite it to say what 9 unelected people THINK the current mood of the country is. That is entirely absurd.

The state of disenfranchised chattel that you never experienced...

Yeah that wasn't changed by the court...it was changed by the LEGISLATURE Libby, do you know why? Because the Court is not given that authority by the Constitution.

Absolutely amazing...

I do wonder if I am to be subjected to another response which COMPLETELY ignores the argument, and instead accuses me of positions I don't hold, in order to create an argument you are capable of answering.

Once again, you seem to be engaged in a debate with someone else.

And perhaps I wouldn't have to repeat my points if you would take the time to address them.

Instead I am forced to waste time dodging baseless accusations like " If you disagreed with any given interpretation, you might believe this happened. If you agreed, you probably wouldn’t."

No Libby, because I believe there is a limit to how one might "interpret" the clear meaning of the English language.

An no again Libby, because when wording is subjective, one can always look at the practical application applies when the law was passed.

This has been absolutely amazing.

Just one more point...

Nick: So if tomorrow I determined that in my opinion, freedom of speech no longer applied to left handed people. ... the answer, (I'm answering for you, forgive me) is hell no you wouldn't!

Libby: Fortunately, not even the opinion supporting Bush v. Gore was anything this silly. This kind of empty rhetoric is a waste of time, also space.

I bet people in the past would have made a comment similar to yours when the court decided that abortion was a constitutional right. Why even bring that up? The constitution doesn't even mention abortion.

There have been so many times throughout history where people have claimed that something was far to unreasonable to even be considered.

Well Peter Singer the head of the ethics dept. at Yale advocates cloning, abortion 30 days after birth organ harvesting.

In short there is no fool idea that you cannot somewhere, find an academic who supports its implementation into policy.

So once again, your refusal to address the weakness of your judicial philosophy and its logical outworking, is further demonstration that you are UNWILLING to think it through and consider the consequences.

Thankfully, the law student has been able to watch this debate.

Because agree or disagree with me, she would be hard pressed to say that you have provided an adequate defense for your position.

Nick: "You are literally attempting to tell me what I believe instead of addressing the questions."

No. I'm telling you that I don't agree with you. Conservatives are inclined to howl "activist court" every time the court issues an opinion they disagree with. I consider this to be totally bogus. You don't like what they concluded, you study their opinion and the bases thereof, you go back to the legislature and try again. The Supreme Court declared state minimum wage laws unconstitutional three times ... and then, victory!

And I will, once again, try and assure you that nobody, nobody at all, is going to force you to clone yerself. Really. I promise. But if the last thousand years have proved anything ... it's that new technologies are unstoppable.

"The Constitution is like a living document." Supreme Court Justice, Ruth Bader Ginsberg. *** Justic Ginsberg said the Constitution evolves and therefore it must be compared to the newest and highest international standards."

To our readers:

The Supreme Court ruled today that "international laws" do not apply in the US under our Constitution and do not need to be heeded by the state of Texas in the execution of a Mexican sentenced to die for his crime of the brutal rape and murder of two teen girls. I guess Ruth Bader Ginsberg's notion is bogus. (and yes Libby I know in your mind it's only bogus for now since your side is relentless).

We must be diligent in order to preserve the republic we were given at the founding. If Miss Libby and friends have their way America will disappear and international socialist law...(or possibly Sharia law)...will prevail.

For now, our sovereignty has been defended as has our Constituiton.

"Conservatives are inclined to howl "activist court" every time the court issues an opinion they disagree with."

Oh please...conservatives disagree when they don't like the decision as they should but NOBODY "howls" like the radical femininists when Roe v. Wade is challenged...they howl and "screech"!!!

"No. I'm telling you that I don't agree with you. Conservatives are inclined to howl "activist court" every time the court issues an opinion they disagree with."

No Libby, I had it right, you have refused to address the points I brought up REPEATEDLY. It almost as if you aren't even reading what I have wrote. Otherwise you would have known that I have agreed with the court EVEN WHEN I DIDN'T LIKE THE RESULT OF THE DECISION. You are not paying attention Libby. You are assigning to me a stereotype. You must be doing this because you cant answer the obvious questions.

"I consider this to be totally bogus. You don't like what they concluded, you study their opinion and the bases thereof, you go back to the legislature and try again. The Supreme Court declared state minimum wage laws unconstitutional three times ... and then, victory!"

Libby, this is hopeless.

inner monologue...(Its as if I am playing chess with someone who insists that they can recreate the rules anyway the see fit without notifying their opponent.)

Why do you think there was a "victory" Libby? Was it because the constitution changed, or because you got a court that decided the constitution SHOULD be changed and then did it FOR the legislature.

IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PARTICULAR LEGISLATION.

IT HAS EVERYTHING DO DO WITH THE PROCESS WHERE BY THE JUSTICES DECIDE THE CASE.....DO ....YOU....UNDERSTAND?

let me make this as simple as I know how.

Libby...the first amendment says you have the right to free speech.

If someone wanted to take that right away, could they do it by...

a. The Executive branch

b. The Legislative branch

c. The Judicial Branch

In my world the answer is a. and b. the legislative branch has this power provided that they can garner a 2/3rds vote in the house and senate, executive approval and then gather at least 2/3rds of the state legislatures to agree to a constitutional amendment over turning the 1st amendment.

IN YOUR WORLD...

The answer is c. the supreme court can overturn this right because they feel like it.

Prove that statement false Libby. Demonstrate to all of us how an unrestrained court permitted to interpret the constitution any way they see fit is incapable of striping you of your freedoms in the name of "the greater good" or "evolving standards of decency" or "hope and change" or whatever platitude you like.

I have now gone to great lengths to demonstrate how the philosophy I espouse, limits the justices to logically limits the court to its constitutional duties.

Now is your chance to tell us how the freedom of speech isn't arbitrarily stripped form us under your system.

And don't say that "It cant happen and is therefore not worth the time to discuss", because the freedom we enjoy is NOT the norm in our world and it certainly has not been the norm throughout history. Perhaps it is not I, who needs to get out more.

Nick: "Libby, this is hopeless. inner monologue ... (Its as if I am playing chess with someone who insists that they can recreate the rules anyway the see fit without notifying their opponent.)"

I will explain. I offered an example (minumum wage law) of how the legislature and court work together over time to evolve some legal precedent ... to the very great benefit of our society. This would come under that "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" laid out in our Constitution. It's a beautiful thing.

Nick: "I have now gone to great lengths to demonstrate how the philosophy I espouse, limits the justices to logically limits the court to its constitutional duties."

And I don't agree with it. I don't consider your observations of the operation of the court valid. I don't agree with your conclusions.

"I offered an example (minumum wage law) of how the legislature and court work together over time to evolve some legal precedent"

This explains a lot. Congress doesn't "work with" the courts to set precedent. Precedence comes from court decisions and is used to prove/disprove a side in other court cases.

I confess I am unaware of how min wage law came about but the Constitutionality of it is, INMO, questionable.

"I will explain. I offered an example (minumum wage law) of how the legislature and court work together over time to evolve some legal precedent ... to the very great benefit of our society. This would come under that "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" laid out in our Constitution. It's a beautiful thing."

Wow, you know a portion of the preamble... I am impressed. I'm sorry, how does this justify your judicial philosophy? Oh it doesn't thats right. You haven't even come CLOSE with this "example" of explaining yourself.

"And I don't agree with it. I don't consider your observations of the operation of the court valid. I don't agree with your conclusions."

Yes...I get that, but you see this was the part where you were supposed to logically explain why.

Oh damn! did I forget to say Logically last time I asked for your argument.

Damn, Damn, Damn,

I'm sorry, I must have forgotten half way through the 27th post who I was debating this with.

Yeah ok, my bad, here is the deal. rational people don't type the equivalent of "stomping up and down and yelling nu hu nu hu nu hu."

They analyze the question asked and present an answer which deals with the problem and or contradiction.

You did that post modernist thing where you just pretend that there isn't a contradiction.

Well Libby, you certainly have presented as thorough a case for your "Hey constitutional law means whatever we want it to, on any given day for any arbitrary reason" philosophy.

I must say that I do not think ANYONE could have made a rational case for it. Primarily because it isn't a rational position. Not pertaining to law in a democratic republic anyhow.

Oh you know where it would work!

A dictatorship.

yeah let me see, a person or group of people making decisions on law without needing to consult a legislature or a legal document which lays out strict limitations which aren't permitted to be changed arbitrarily.

well heck, I'm pretty sure that meets the very definition of a dictatorship! Enjoy!

One other quick note Libby

I just remembered that I was wrong on one point...

"Life Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" is not in the preamble of the Constitution...

Its in the Deceleration of Independence.

And I apologize for not catching that sooner.

I am even more sorry that you weren't aware of which document we have been discussing this entire time.

You have read the Constitution...right?

"This explains a lot. Congress doesn't "work with" the courts to set precedent. Precedence comes from court decisions and is used to prove/disprove a side in other court cases."

And an opininon rendered by the Supreme Court is not a "court decision"? It'll come as news to them.

Come on, now. The legislature passes a law. The court says, nope. The legislature says, ok try this. The court says, not quite. The legislature says, what about this now! And the court says, it'll do. You don't call this working together? I do.

P.S.: Listen, off the top of my head, I do the best I can. We'll call it promotion of the general welfare, instead.

Libby has finally caught on to what document we are referring to!

Good job Libby. Of course I am going to demand a tax rebate for whatever public school you went to. because as it turns out the Preamble is just that...a preamble. the "law" part comes shortly after.

You really should try reading the documents you claim to be a subject matter expert on.

And do my eyes deceive me, or has Libby once again avoided the central issue in favor of a peripheral?

Oh my goodness she has...again...what a shock.

Libby: "Listen, off the top of my head, I do the best I can. We'll call it promotion of the general welfare, instead."

I understand that you do in fact do the best you can...but can you please explain to me how I am supposed to listen to your written statement?

This has been an absolute pleasure. Everybody else who shares your point of view had the good sense to keep quiet shortly in to this debate, when they realized the logical conundrum in which they found themselves. But not you Libby, nope, I can always count on you to keep running into the same wall over and over; exposing your positions for the intellectually bankrupt concepts they are.

I can guarantee that you have done far more than I ever could have, in demonstrating the illogical nature of your position. I mean, who else would have so obviously avoided the central theme only to return over and over, accentuating the blatant contradiction of their argument with every post.

God Bless you Libby, because without you, I don't know where I would find someone so willing to articulate the reason why modern liberalism is a fundamentally illogical philosophy based on subterfuge and happy thoughts, but little else.

But don't feel too bad, at least you gave it a try. Which is more than I can say for some of your compatriots.

Anyway, thanks again. There is always hope for conservatism as long as their are liberals unafraid to say what they are REALLY thinking.

Nick, when you spend a solid foot on how intellectually bereft I am (and nothing else) ... I know I've nailed ya.

Wow!
Another reason I don't respond too often is it is difficult to find where I was!
Gosh you guys post a lot.
Nick, all I meant was that you need to deal with the fact that I actually care about you as a human being.
Just because I find your opinions ill-informed, and your arguments tangenital, does not mean I don't care!
Geez! If you choose to be offended--like your friend Marie T.--guess what?
You will be offended!

Atta Girl, Libby!

"Come on, now. The legislature passes a law. The court says, nope. The legislature says, ok try this. The court says, not quite. The legislature says, what about this now! And the court says, it'll do. You don't call this working together? I do."

No I don't. The Supreme Court is called upon by legal eagles to determine if a lower courts determination in a case is Constitutional. The process is quite lengthy before the SC decides whether or not the matter will even be considered. It is a seperate process. The only time congress passes a law after hearing a SC decision is when something is happening that begs legislation...like the case associated with the terrorist on trial at Gitmo.

And besides, you said they "worked together to evolve some legal precedent." Precedent isn't something that evolves, it just is.

"Nick, when you spend a solid foot on how intellectually bereft I am (and nothing else) ... I know I've nailed ya."

Hardly...frustrated maybe, but nailed? Nope.

Atta boy, Nick...as long as we're choosing up sides. LOL

Libby:"Nick, when you spend a solid foot on how intellectually bereft I am (and nothing else) ... I know I've nailed ya."

Really?

So your strategy is not to present a rational defense of your position...your strategy is to wait for me to point out that you haven't presented a rational defense.

That is...interesting.

I'm glad no one has charged you with defending anything of importance.

Quentin: "Nick, all I meant was that you need to deal with the fact that I actually care about you as a human being.
Just because I find your opinions ill-informed, and your arguments tangenital, does not mean I don't care!
Geez! If you choose to be offended--like your friend Marie T.--guess what?
You will be offended!

Atta Girl, Libby!"

I see, so you can say what ever you feel like, no matter how rude or vitriol, and if someone finds it offensive, that is just their problem...hmmmm

Interesting philosophy, no tell me, is that reciprocated, or does that just apply to when YOU are saying something offensive.

As far as my ability to form an argument, you pretty much settled that question when you proved unable to answer my argument for the constitutionality of the war.

You also might want to hold on to the "atta girl" for Libby until you read what she actually had to say about the Constitution.

Needless to say, she doesn't share your proclaimed love for it or the founders.

Quentin writes "you don't know him” I certainly hope that he is not, the obstinate, pompous ass he comes across as.

I'm sorry Quentin, you don't come across as someone who cares for Nick's welfare, you only seem to care that you are perceived as right.

People who actualy care about the welfare of others, rarely if ever have such a difficult time of convincing people of their concern.

On any subject, you claim yourself to be the final arbiter. If anyone disagrees, they are stupid, ignorant or drunk. you apparently feel you can say whatever you want because you are superior to everyone else. you do, however, appear unable or unwilling to answer specific questions when they are in contradiction to your own views.

The fact is, you've not been able to refute the fact that minimum wage law comes under the heading of the promotion of general welfare, and you've not been able to wish away the (dare I say it) liberal evolution of legal precedent.

It's a bummer, but there it is.

Libby says, "The fact is, you've not been able to refute the fact that minimum wage law comes under the heading of the promotion of general welfare..."

Sorry Libby, I'm not sure this was addressed to me but if it was I apologize. Somehow I missed this important point. I'm kept pretty busy these days posting, deleting spam, filling in for Jack who has been serving the county and state, and answering every comment...but in any case here you go:

Wages are "specific"...quite specific. They do not come under the heading, therefore, of "general" welfare.

In like fashion, "mandates" regarding wages would come under a much differet heading than "to promote".

A sign posted in every company provided by the government that says something like, "Please pay your employees well" would be an act of "promotion". Mandated minimum wages amount to coercive oppression...the founders would be appalled and dismayed.

From Websters:

general - applicable or pertinent to the majority of individuals involved

The majority of citizens don't need a minimum wage to pursue happiness or become prosperous. (although if you have your way it might someday fit...no one will want, or be able to work)

coerce - to restrain, control, or dominate, nullifying individual will or desire (as by force, power, violence, or intimidation) ** to effect, bring about, establish, or enforce by force, threat, or other pressure

oppression - unjust or cruel exercise of authority or power especially by the imposition of burdens; especially : the unlawful, excessive, or corrupt exercise of power other than by extortion by any public officer so as to harm anyone in his rights, person, or property while purporting to act under color of governmental authority

Libby continues, "...and you've not been able to wish away the (dare I say it) liberal evolution of legal precedent."

Liberal evolution of legal precedent? What a mouthful of absolute MUSH.

Precedents are "set" they do not evolve.

But perhaps I've misunderstood (it was, after all, mush)...care to elaborate on the "liberal evolution of legal precedent"?