Something to Ponder

**Lady's Human** · 05-20-2010, 08:00 PM

Never seen a lawyer with a shovel

I have.....a JAG officer attempting to dig a foxhole in the field......

Not a pretty sight.

**wombat2u2004** · 05-21-2010, 03:06 AM

Originally Posted by Lady's Human

I have.....a JAG officer attempting to dig a foxhole in the field......

Not a pretty sight.

Pity he never buried himself...hee hee

**Bonny** · 05-21-2010, 06:40 AM

I know a couple of lawyers that can handle a shovel pretty good but mostly golf clubs.

**wombat2u2004** · 05-21-2010, 12:16 PM

Originally Posted by Bonny

I know a couple of lawyers that can handle a shovel pretty good but mostly golf clubs.

I had a laugh about a statement made by my daughters boyfriends father....(a future in law ??? I hope not, he's a lawyer).......the statement..........
"Everyone who ever was in the military forces gets some form of PTSD"
That coming from someone who has never held anything in his hands but a pen.
I held my tongue on that one.

**blue** · 05-21-2010, 10:19 PM

It may have been a joke, but it isnt wrong.

**Grace** · 05-21-2010, 10:40 PM

You can thank the State of Rhode Island, home of "the otherwise-minded, for the Bill of Rights. Rhode Island refused to ratify the Constitution - demanding that the Bill of Rights, which guarantees individual liberties, be added. Even with that, they were the last of the 13 to sign on.

**wombat2u2004** · 05-21-2010, 10:57 PM

Originally Posted by blue

It may have been a joke, but it isnt wrong.

Well I can't vouch for the numbers and percentages....but if someone asked me, I'd say that it would have to be close to the truth....yeah.

**Puckstop31** · 05-21-2010, 09:14 AM

Originally Posted by Lady's Human

I have.....a JAG officer attempting to dig a foxhole in the field......

Not a pretty sight.

LOL. Or any Air Force officer. We had this intel guy traveling with us last trip to Bosnia. He killed the clearing barrell, THREE TIMES.

"Sir, do us a favor will ya? Do NOT put a round in the chamber next time we go out, ok? We got your back."

**wombat2u2004** · 05-21-2010, 11:25 AM

James Madison, who wrote the US Bill of Rights, had earlier been opposed to the inclusion of any Bill of Rights in the Constitution. His reasons for not wanting it are also the reasons usually given by opponents of the inclusion of a Bill of Rights in the Australian Constitution.

One of the chief arguments against a constitutional Bill of Rights is that it gives judges too much power. The courts interpret the constitution, and from the highest court there is no appeal (though the Constitution can be amended -- a difficult process). As Americans sometimes say, "The US Constitution is whatever the Supreme Court says it is". In many cases the Supreme Court has interpreted the Bill of Rights by means of wire-drawn reasoning, reflecting the judges' political and social views.

The Supreme Court's power to interpret the constitution has made the appointment of judges a political issue, and in 1937 President Roosevelt sought to appoint additional judges (to "pack" the Court) so as to change the court's attitude (the US Constitution does not fix the number of judges). A President is expected to nominate judges ideologically acceptable to his supporters, and the Congress scrutinises these nominations in a partisan way. Since judges hold office for life, a President's nominations may make a long-term difference to the interpretation of the constitution.

To many it seems better to keep the courts free of politics and leave rights issues to the ordinary political process, in which politicians can be held responsible by the electorate -- on this view the best safeguard of basic rights is the political culture of a democratic country. However, this does not protect very well the interests of any group or groups who are regularly in a minority (e.g. racial or religious groups). The main argument in favour of a constitutional Bill of Rights is that it will protect the rights of minorities more effectively than the democratic process will. On the other hand (and this was one of Madison's original objections), people hostile to some minority will try to restrict and narrow the definition of rights when the Bill of Rights is being drawn up -- and the more explicit the definitions the narrower they are likely to be.

**Puckstop31** · 05-21-2010, 12:01 PM

Originally Posted by wombat2u2004

James Madison, who wrote the US Bill of Rights, had earlier been opposed to the inclusion of any Bill of Rights in the Constitution. His reasons for not wanting it are also the reasons usually given by opponents of the inclusion of a Bill of Rights in the Australian Constitution.

One of the chief arguments against a constitutional Bill of Rights is that it gives judges too much power. The courts interpret the constitution, and from the highest court there is no appeal (though the Constitution can be amended -- a difficult process). As Americans sometimes say, "The US Constitution is whatever the Supreme Court says it is". In many cases the Supreme Court has interpreted the Bill of Rights by means of wire-drawn reasoning, reflecting the judges' political and social views.

The Supreme Court's power to interpret the constitution has made the appointment of judges a political issue, and in 1937 President Roosevelt sought to appoint additional judges (to "pack" the Court) so as to change the court's attitude (the US Constitution does not fix the number of judges). A President is expected to nominate judges ideologically acceptable to his supporters, and the Congress scrutinises these nominations in a partisan way. Since judges hold office for life, a President's nominations may make a long-term difference to the interpretation of the constitution.

To many it seems better to keep the courts free of politics and leave rights issues to the ordinary political process, in which politicians can be held responsible by the electorate -- on this view the best safeguard of basic rights is the political culture of a democratic country. However, this does not protect very well the interests of any group or groups who are regularly in a minority (e.g. racial or religious groups). The main argument in favour of a constitutional Bill of Rights is that it will protect the rights of minorities more effectively than the democratic process will. On the other hand (and this was one of Madison's original objections), people hostile to some minority will try to restrict and narrow the definition of rights when the Bill of Rights is being drawn up -- and the more explicit the definitions the narrower they are likely to be.

A good arguement. And indeed Madison was originall opposed to a BOR.

I am grateful he changed his mind and had the first 10 Amendments added.

It is a shame that what we have for government today barely pays the Constitution any mind anymore.

**wombat2u2004** · 05-21-2010, 12:08 PM

Originally Posted by Puckstop31

A good arguement. And indeed Madison was originall opposed to a BOR.

I am grateful he changed his mind and had the first 10 Amendments added.

It is a shame that what we have for government today barely pays the Constitution any mind anymore.

Are your pollies so out of touch with the ordinary man ???
If that is so, can't something be done about that ???