Quote:
Originally Posted by lizbud
I love tripe and I eat a bowl of menudo whenever I can.
Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by lizbud
I love tripe and I eat a bowl of menudo whenever I can.
What are they doing arguing about politics then ???Quote:
Originally Posted by lizbud
The judiciary is there to apply the law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wombat2u2004
The Justices are not arguing,they are espousing their own personal
ideas of what is right or proper under the law. I am beyond tired of hearing
only the Conservative definitionss & look forward to a little more balance
in the debates.
A good question Wom.Quote:
Originally Posted by wombat2u2004
Article III of the U.S. Constitution.
"Article III - The Judicial Branch
Section 1 - Judicial powers
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials
(The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.) (This section in parentheses is modified by the 11th Amendment.)
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
Section 3 - Treason
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."
---
Over the years, the SCOTUS has taken on a role of interpreting the Constitution. As you can see, that is not a power directly given it, but it makes sense that it would become so. (The Marshall Court, the case of Marbury vs. Madison was influential.) But herin lies the the key... The Court is supposed to ONLY decide if a law is Constitutional, not to actually make law. Naturally, a ruling they make could motivate Congress to change or create a new law, but a SCOTUS ruling does not create law.
So, as long as the SCOTUS does it's job.... Ruling if laws the Congress and Executive branch pass are legal according to the Constitution, then the system is working as the founders intended. (Ok, at least the Court part. LOL)
To summarize... If you want to CHANGE how the Federal Government of the United States works... (ETA, or confer new 'rights' to citizens.) Amend the Constitution. The founders, in their brilliance, gave us the ability to do so.
This more-than-a-little-left of center Liberal says "Merry Christmas and happy New Year", Wom. I still respect other cultures, but I do say "Merry Christmas."Quote:
Originally Posted by wombat2u2004
I don't usually post here, so apologies if I step on any feet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Puckstop31
I agree. During the recent elections, the local TEA party had stickers for the CSA, Constitutional States of America. This reflected the idea that the country needs to return to the roots of the constitution. They don't like all of the amendments or liberal views of the constitution.
Okay, I don't pay attention like I should, but I didn't realize that we had strayed. I explained to the seller at the rally that the constitution was designed to be amended, but it wasn't easy. He wasn't happy with that and just smiled. IMHO, this desire by 1/2 of our country to run the constitution through a conservative filter does break from the intentions of our forefathers.
Sadly I do realize that there are other issues behind this desire to "return" to the "roots" of the constitution. I also think it is a rallying cry, just to get people to vote your way.
We have also gotten to the point where we cannot agree to disagree any more. WE are each right and there is no between.
So do I. So why all the political correctness ???Quote:
Originally Posted by mrspunkysmom
I respect other cultures as well, and some are offended by Merry Xmas ???
Perhaps other cultures should learn to respect other than themselves.
I don't hear too much about respect from them, but I do hear a lot of "I am offended" by them.
The melting pot theory is a great idea.......if we ALL agree with it. ;);)
Fair enough. You all have a system that you believe works, if you are happy with that, then I say fair enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by Puckstop31
For me, a true Separation of the Powers does not allow judicial interference in political disputes (Bush v Gore), apportionment and re-districting (Baker v Carr). These disputes should handled by the Legislature or the Executive.
The Supreme Court has an increasingly central role in American governance.
Is that a good thing ???? Have the framers of your Constitution given YOU the right to amend the Constitution ??? They probably have.
Those positions tho are filled with politically appointed judges who stick their heads into the political arena, and themselves creating Legislation and amending the Constitution based on their own political ideals.
Dunno if that is a good thing Pucky. Here, the Powers all have their own responsibilities. The Executive and the Legislature are pretty well intertwined,
but the Federal Judiciary strictly guards its independence from the other two branches.
Yeah, I read Marbury v Madison. They did a good job on poor old Marbury :eek:
One question I will ask you tho. From a vet to a vet.
Article III
Section 3 - Treason
Why wasn't Jane Fonda charged with Treason ????
Can you explain what you mean by "conservative filter" and how doing so breaks from the intentions of the founders? Or, can you share what you think the founders intentions were?Quote:
Originally Posted by mrspunkysmom
I do understand how you can feel on the point of not being able to disagree anymore. It goes to the buzzword "bi-partisan". That word is a very dangerous one. Compromise (Bi-Partisanship?) is OK, as long as one does not have to compromise core values to get it. I think this is where the deadlock comes from. The "sides" are so far apart that neither seems to be willing or able to compromise. Basically, each 'side' sees compromise as the OTHER side caving in. Its a pickle indeed. Personally, I think that a slow moving, divided Congress is a GREAT thing. Partisanship makes people think and be creative.
Good points.Quote:
Originally Posted by wombat2u2004
I hear what you are saying baout the Judiciary getting invovled in political disputes. But, to me, you cannot have a TRUE separation of powers if only two branches are involved. The Judiciary needs to be the final arbeiter from time to time, when no other Constitutional solution can be found.
But, I cannot argue that the Judiciary here has become way to political. But what do you do? You can't have elections for them, because that makes it WAY political.
In the end... As long as the arguements stay about the Constitutionality of a law, it is working.
Do you really need to ask? The fact that she is not in jail is a disgrace.Quote:
One question I will ask you tho. From a vet to a vet.
Article III
Section 3 - Treason
Why wasn't Jane Fonda charged with Treason ????
My Dad saw an ad for some new exercise video she put out.... He was less than pleased. ;)
I think the founding fathers created a system of laws that would serve the country in their time but that could be amended by future generations to meet their needs. They, too, had to compromise to get the document written.
It seems like many conservatives put judicial candidates through a litmus tests of certain ideological values such as Roe vs Wade, Defense of Marriage, open homosexuality in the military, etc. I would hope that someone selected to a higher judicial bench would decide on the merits of the case and not just on their own beliefs.
This is part of the polarization of this country around the religion litmus test. I know many people, liberal in belief except for Roe vs Wade, who would vote for a conservative they couldn't stand if that person promised to overturn Roe vs Wade. I was raised Catholic and still believe, but I have come to respect others' beliefs and cultures.
Our elections and politics seem to have become a one-issue conversation.
Sadly the liberals aren't behaving much better. Rather than taking the high road, the liberals have engaged in political mud wrestling with the conservatives.
I hope I have clarified my rambling thoughts.
They created a system of government that ensures the highest possible level of INDIVIDUAL Liberty. Individual is important and much different than the 'liberty' of the collective masses. It was also intended that the Federal Government remain as small as possible. The Constitution grants the Federal Government a limited scope of powers and with the 10th Amendment, ensures that everything else is up to the States or the People.Quote:
Originally Posted by mrspunkysmom
As time progresses there are certainly needs for the Federal Government to need more ability to do certain things. I believe that it has grown WAY too big. So big that it starts to inhibit a persons Liberty, rather than enhance it.
Counter to that are the words "or to the people" in the 10th Amendment. The People elect our representatives and thus the arguement can be made that as long as the elected do what the electorate wants, its OK. Does that look like what has happened in the past couple of decades?
No. But it's the same all over the world. I think Pollies have become distant from the people.....and I think it will get worse in the future.Quote:
Originally Posted by Puckstop31
Actually, I have more and more faith in my countrymen every day. The key is to actually talk to people rather than listen to the news media.Quote:
Originally Posted by wombat2u2004
AND, we just learned that people CAN change. So, everything is coming up "Milhouse". LOL
Merry New Year! :D
A Happy New Year to you and yours to Puck ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Puckstop31
Funny thing you should mention the media. I was talking to a guy today who is the manager of a huge car sales company in Queensland. He was telling me that in motor magazines, the articles that list the best cars from No.10 down to No.1 based on test drives by the author of those articles, is nothing but a whole heap of BS. Evidently these so called journalists receive huge money kickbacks from car manufacturers to put their brand of cars further up the list..
I mean, some people read those magazines like they are the bible, and base their next vehicle purchase on the so called facts that are printed.
And these guys just KEEP getting away with this kind of stuff.
Starting off on the right foot -
Quote:
WASHINGTON — In the first two days of the new Congress , Dallas Rep. Pete Sessions cast a series of votes and participated in House committee hearings. But there was one problem: he was not officially sworn in as a member of Congress.
source
Too busy celebrating & gladhanding to observe the House rules I guess.:)
There was one other member(almost) who missed swearing in on the House
floor, but I think they finally got the record straightened out.:rolleyes:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...ut-still-vote/
Gabrielle Giffords, D-AZ, was shot in the head this morning in Tucson.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/09/us...s.html?_r=1&hp
ETA - up to a dozen people may have been shot, and it's being reported that some have died.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grace
Isn't this tragic.:( Her husband is an Astronaut preparing for a mission.
I've head that a child was killed as well as a Federal Judge. I am watching
a news report now.
The DBag shot and killed a 9 year old! *Edited at the request of the Mayor* thats the tragedy.
Mr DBag shooter is in custody before he could off himself, now we have to house and feed this AHole until we can try him.
ETA: If a well known Conservative female had been shot in the head many lefties, nationwide and in the news media, would have noticed A CHILD was killed. Instead they are pining over a politician because a D followed her name, the fact that a child was killed isnt as important as a left leaning judge or a Democrat politician.
Blue, everywhere in the news Congresswoman Gifford's name leads the story, not the judge that was fatally shot, nor the others that are dead or injured, esp a child. She was more than likely the focus of the shooter, and thus leads the story.Quote:
Originally Posted by blue
I too think it is tragic that this scumbucket (too nice a word) resorted to violence to make a point and he shot or killed 18 people to make a point. It is equally sad that respect for other people and for life is not taught in our society.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blue
Clue: This thread is about Politics. Clue: A political figure was shot in the head today.
If you were to be shot tomorrow, it would probably be noted in your local media If your Governor were shot
tomorrow, it would be noted in the local AND National media.
National media follows National figures no matter what political party they belong to.
Excuse me for putting a child up as more important then a Democrat politician.
Blue, I wonder if, in the media's case, it is that they have information on the public figures - the politicians, but don't have much info on the child, and the family may not want that info released, so they can process and mourn privately. As private citizens, we should afford them that right, as politicians, that's part of being a "public servant" - lack of privacy.Quote:
Originally Posted by blue
What's that phrase - words have consequences? Actions do, also. And postings on Facebook.
During the fall campaign season, a former Governor had a post on Facebook. A map was shown, depicting spots where Democrats (in particular, those who had voted for health care reform) were running for re-election; those Democrats were noted by crosshairs symbols like those seen through the scope of a gun. Ms. Giffords was among those on the map.
The media made the case that a Democrat politicians, or a left leaning judges, life is more important then a childs life.Quote:
Originally Posted by Karen
What I find tragic is that others follow along with the MSM's judgment of whose life is more meaningful. The life of a child, or the life of a Democratic politician or judge. The fact that the media and the sheeples view that the politicians life was more news worthy is sickening.
Roof top voting has started.
I expected this to come out, but not from you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Grace
I don't want to put words in your mouth.... But this post makes me feel that you would be OK 'banning' speech of this sort.
Will we ever get past living our lives in fear of the lowest common denominator? There will ALWAYS be crazy people who do crazy things. Why should we inhibit our Liberty to keep ourselves "safe" from the crazy people? I mean, look at FOX/HUFFPO/MEDIA MATTERS/etc. The same insane aruguments come out every time something like this happens.
----
Armored rubber suits for all! Pre-programmed TV of ONE channel, with 'safe' content! All internet posts must pre 'approved' before posting. Organic, free range, carbon neutral tofu for all and nothing else.
:rolleyes:
Sorry, just trying to stay with the media's theme for today.
Lets find out what this morons real motivation was before we say stupid things like this, ok?Quote:
Originally Posted by blue
Blue, the 'voting from the rooftops' thing is INSANE. Killing a civilian who posed no threat to you is MURDER. Period.
So stop it, OK?
sourceQuote:
Last year, after her district turned up under crosshairs on Sarah Palin's "Take Back the 20" map, a chart of congressional districts whose congresspeople voted for health care reform, Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords gave an interview to MSNBC. Today, sadly, her words from that interview are terrifyingly prescient:
We need to realize that the rhetoric, and the firing people up and ... for example, we're on Sarah Palin's targeted list, but the thing is, the way she has it depicted, we're in the crosshairs of a gun sight over our district. When people do that, they've got to realize that there are consequences to that action...
Super. Now you can start the "Its all Palin's fault" and maybe leave ol' George alone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Grace
Really? This is what we are coming to in this country?
Signed,
"The Enemy"
20 people were shot; 6 have died.
Gabe Zimmerman, 30, Giffords community outreach director. He was recently engaged.
John Roll, 63, the chief judge for the District of Arizona,
Christina Taylor Green,9. Here is an article about her from the Washington Post.
Dorwin Stoddard, 76.
Dorthy Murray, 76.
Phyllis Scheck, 79.
I never said anything of the sort, and you know it. I posted an article and then a quote. I provided the links. If you choose to attribute the thoughts in these articles to me, or anyone else on this board, you are way out of line.Quote:
Originally Posted by Puckstop31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puckstop31
Agreed.:)
WE are ALL for free speeech in this country, that's part of what makes
this country great. The choice of words is important & does have major
influence on the already fragile state of mind of some individuals in our
society. We could do without the "lock & load" mentality speech coming
from some quarters of the political community.
Given the current context of the thread.... If you intent was not to 'blame' Mrs. Palin ( or Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, etc...) for this violence, what was the reason for sharing it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Grace
Like you said, words matter, but the mindset of the reader matters too. A map with crosshairs on it can mean a lot of things to a lot of people. Sane people will read it one way and a insane person.... Who knows how they will read it? Do we all need to be careful as to not 'say' things so as to not motivate a crazy person to be...crazy? HOW do we do that?
What I am trying to get at it is lets not start making excuses for this guy already, or help the media turn this into a reason to force us apart.
So, which is it? FREE speech or being careful to not 'have majorQuote:
Originally Posted by lizbud
influence on the already fragile state of mind of some individuals in our
society'?
I say this because "voting from the rooftops" is NOT a concept that is vague. Implying that a political figure's map was motivation for a murder.... Thats a little different.
And.... I am ALL for keeping the debate to the issues at hand.
I would be beyond happy to be wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Puckstop31
Now that was interesting - especially for a one-time Neuro ICU nurse who very recently had a craniotomy.
There was just a press conference at University of Arizona. The main speakers were Dr. Peter Rhee, Medical Director of the Trauma Center, and Dr. Michael Lemole, Neurosurgeon.
Of the patients they received yesterday, one has been discharged and only one is still in ICU; the rest have improved enough to be transferred to floor care.
Congresswoman Giffords went to the OR just 38 minutes after hitting the ER door. The bullet ran the entire length of the left side of her head, from front to back. It did not cross hemispheres, nor did it cross the center of the brain. Both of the scenarios would have been much worse. She was following simple commands before and after the surgery. As the Neurosurgeon said, don't be deceived by the word simple. The brain has to process a lot to follow a command. That she can do this, makes them feel optimistic.
They did not put back the bone flap - that allows for swelling to occur. At some point in the future the flap will be replaced. I can tell you that my flap was the size of my surgeon's hand - that gives you an idea of the area. Hers might be larger.
She is in a medically-induced coma for the time being. Like being under anesthesia - they can wake her up to check neuro status.
So far - so good.
Not excusing the shooter, but it seems pretty obvious from his Youtube postings, only a few of which I have seen, that he is extremely mentally ill. His logic is illogical, and pulling a few sentences out that point in a single direction is misleading.
Do not read any politics into this, anyone could have been the target, regardless of ideology.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Karen
Very true. We do not yet know the shooter's intent. He was very much
anti-government. His writings indicate that much, but we need a clearer
picture of the man himself to draw any conclusions.
This first person account of the incident is chilling. I don't think I would
have had the presence of mind to react as quickly. Thank heavens they did.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/01/09/ari...ex.html?hpt=C1
Christina Green
Born September 11, 2001
Died January 8, 2011
Born into a world of terrorism
and died by it's hand.
Bless the children who will never
know a world without hate, anger,
evil and terror.
Amen.