GOP leaders fed up with Rush Limbaugh...

SheikBen is correct, there is no such thing as neutrality. What you may interpret as being neutral is interpreted by another as against. What I interpret as neutrality you may interpret as "for". We can go back and forth on this all day and in the end we are going to end up right where we are now.

So we are not always happy. But nothing guarantees that we will always be happy.

That is why the Constitution appoints the Courts to be arbiters of matters involving questions of the law and of the Constitution. And if we believe in the Constitution, then we have to believe in the Courts.

ziggy wrote:

SheikBen is correct, there is no such thing as neutrality. What you may interpret as being neutral is interpreted by another as against. What I interpret as neutrality you may interpret as "for". We can go back and forth on this all day and in the end we are going to end up right where we are now.

So we are not always happy. But nothing guarantees that we will always be happy.

That is why the Constitution appoints the Courts to be arbiters of matters involving questions of the law and of the Constitution. And if we believe in the Constitution, then we have to believe in the Courts.

However, and even you have admitted this, the courts can be just of vile, by legislating, when they have no right to. That is why all the fighting over supreme court justices in senate. Both the right and left are quite good at using the courts to accomplish what they can't in the legislature. That is just as evil.

In a way you hit on the point, because government is so big and so intrusive, when one party is made happy another is stepped upon. The example Sheik give really illustrates that point. If the kid is not allowed to mention Jesus in a Valedictorian speach, who has actually won. I say no one has. First, of all the kid is denied the right to speak freely, a corner stone of our liberty. Secondly, the public as a whole has lost because we have government officials dictating what is and isn't acceptable speach. Third, even those who oppose someone invoking the name of Jesus on government property looses, because the precident is then set that government can limit speach.

Additionally, government has also limited or prohibited the free exercise of religion. While I have no idea whether or not you agree or disagree with that last statement, the fact will remain, that the only solution that will work is to remove government from all the places it doesn't belong. That way government can't be used to by either side to force their views on the other.

Anyways, be that as it may, the lowest common denominator here is not the courts, or us being happy, it is that we have a government that infiltrates and influances nearly every part of our lives. Until the time the size and scope of government is brought back in line with the US Constitution we are going to have this problem.

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:

SheikBen is correct, there is no such thing as neutrality. What you may interpret as being neutral is interpreted by another as against. What I interpret as neutrality you may interpret as "for". We can go back and forth on this all day and in the end we are going to end up right where we are now.

So we are not always happy. But nothing guarantees that we will always be happy.

That is why the Constitution appoints the Courts to be arbiters of matters involving questions of the law and of the Constitution. And if we believe in the Constitution, then we have to believe in the Courts.

However, and even you have admitted this, the courts can be just of vile, by legislating, when they have no right to. That is why all the fighting over supreme court justices in senate. Both the right and left are quite good at using the courts to accomplish what they can't in the legislature. That is just as evil.

No, I have not said that the Courts are vile or evil. I have said only that sometimes they are wrong- meaning that their judgements are different from what mine would be.

In a way you hit on the point, because government is so big and so intrusive, when one party is made happy another is stepped upon.
The example Sheik give really illustrates that point. If the kid is not allowed to mention Jesus in a Valedictorian speach, who has actually won. I say no one has. First, of all the kid is denied the right to speak freely, a corner stone of our liberty. Secondly, the public as a whole has lost because we have government officials dictating what is and isn't acceptable speach. Third, even those who oppose someone invoking the name of Jesus on government property looses, because the precident is then set that government can limit speach.

The example Sheik uses illustrates that, Constitutionally, the government, via government schools, is not allowed to serve as a platform for religious proselytizing. Do you think it should be?

Additionally, government has also limited or prohibited the free exercise of religion. While I have no idea whether or not you agree or disagree with that last statement, the fact will remain, that the only solution that will work is to remove government from all the places it doesn't belong. That way government can't be used to by either side to force their views on the other.

Other than via government sponsored forums, such as public schools, where or how has the government "limited or prohibited the free exercise of religion"?

Anyways, be that as it may, the lowest common denominator here is not the courts, or us being happy, it is that we have a government that infiltrates and influances nearly every part of our lives.

So how do we do that? Change the Constitution to disallow questions of the law and of the Constitution from being heard by the Courts?

ziggy wrote:No, I have not said that the Courts are vile or evil. I have said only that sometimes they are wrong- meaning that their judgements are different from what mine would be.

I wish we had the old forum because I remember you condemning rulings that didn't go the way you thought.

The example Sheik uses illustrates that, Constitutionally, the government, via government schools, is not allowed to serve as a platform for religious proselytizing. Do you think it should be?

Acutally you more than illustrate my point. What maybe religious proselytizing to you may be just saying a prayer to another. Either way, one party is aleignated. That is why government needs to be out of everything, including education.

Other than via government sponsored forums, such as public schools, where or how has the government "limited or prohibited the free exercise of religion"?

The Constitution does not limit speach to what another find acceptable. Be that as it may, again you more than illustrate my point that governemnt is far to large and far too intrusive. That allows government to be used by various parties to force their views on another.

So how do we do that? Change the Constitution to disallow questions of the law and of the Constitution from being heard by the Courts?

We limit government to what is found in Article one section 8 of the US Constitution and no more.

You are and interesting bird Ziggy. You are willing to place your trust in the courts, yet you aren't willing to trust those that appoint the judges, the politicians. That is dangerous in my book. It would seem more reasonable to me not to trust either. I know in this day and age, I have no trust in the Court system. That is because I can assured that either the left or right has appointed the judge, and that judge leans to thier thinking. That leans itself to bias from both sides.

ziggy wrote:No, I have not said that the Courts are vile or evil. I have said only that sometimes they are wrong- meaning that their judgements are different from what mine would be.

(Cato)- I wish we had the old forum because I remember you condemning rulings that didn't go the way you thought.

To comdemn the Courts is not to say that they are vile and evil any more than to condemn the legislative branch or the administtative branches of government is to call them vile and evil. "Vile" and "evil" are not words that I commonly use. I have not called any government agents or agencies vile or evil. You have me confused with someone else. But I do sometimes disagree with Court rulings.

(Ziggy)-So how do we do that? Change the Constitution to disallow questions of the law and of the Constitution from being heard by the Courts?

(Cato)- We limit government to what is found in Article one section 8 of the US Constitution and no more.

If we limited government to only that one section of the Constitution, we would be ignoring the rest of the Constitution- including the provisions for a president and a system of Courts.

(Cato)You are and interesting bird Ziggy. You are willing to place your trust in the courts, yet you aren't willing to trust those that appoint the judges, the politicians. That is dangerous in my book. It would seem more reasonable to me not to trust either. I know in this day and age, I have no trust in the Court system. That is because I can assured that either the left or right has appointed the judge, and that judge leans to thier thinking. That leans itself to bias from both sides.

From the Constitution:

Article III
Section 1. 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 behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.


Section 2. 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.

So what do you think should be the function of the Courts if not to address questions of law and of the Constitution as those questions are brought to the Courts?

Cato wrote:

Acutally you more than illustrate my point. What maybe religious proselytizing to you may be just saying a prayer to another. Either way, one party is aleignated. That is why government needs to be out of everything, including education.

Do you not believe that the 10th Amendment allows states to be in the business of education?

Most controversies over matters of education are between a state and its citizens. The federal Courts become involved as to questions about the U.S. Constitution. Questions relating to the 1st and 14th Amendments, for example, are common in disputes involving states and the citizens thereof.

Acutally you more than illustrate my point. What maybe religious proselytizing to you may be just saying a prayer to another.

A prayer, or a sermon- whatever you call it- it is religious proselytizing. And when its done in the context of government sponsored and mandated events- in school cases that usually state government- it is a constitutional issue.

And it is those kinds of disputes, when they involve the law and the Constitution, which the Constitution directs to the Courts.

How would you have it be otherwise?

Ziggy,

You'll have to explain to me just exactly how valedictorians are representatives of the government. They were elected to nothing and have no legal authority over anyone. If a Valedictorian had the power, say, to arrest members of the audience or de fiat create laws, that would be one thing.

The poor girl or guy is stripped of their 1st amendment rights by virtue of their high grades. I should like a better reward.

Are you suggesting that we also ban political speech (that people disagree on), debates over the war, debates over capital punishment, etc., as people find those conversations every bit as frustrating as they do chats on religion.

How far do you want to take your call for censorship? Should we all be limited to singing Kumbaya and holding hands while eating tofu?

ziggy wrote:Cato wrote:

Acutally you more than illustrate my point. What maybe religious proselytizing to you may be just saying a prayer to another. Either way, one party is aleignated. That is why government needs to be out of everything, including education.

Do you not believe that the 10th Amendment allows states to be in the business of education?

Most controversies over matters of education are between a state and its citizens. The federal Courts become involved as to questions about the U.S. Constitution. Questions relating to the 1st and 14th Amendments, for example, are common in disputes involving states and the citizens thereof.

First, yes the state governments can and do provide education. Do I think it is wise, I don't anymore, for the very reasons you are stating. A student decides to thank God for all blessings in their life during a speach you call that proselytizing, the student calls recognizing the one from whom all blessings come. As a parent I want my kids exposed to all possible explainations and theories regarding life, you want your child to only be taught the the Theory of evolution. We serve no purpose by using the force of government to get our way, because no matter which side we land on, we force the other to accept policy we disagree with.

The only solution is to limit government influance and the only to do that is to either completely remove government from education or to make provision to allow choice between private or public school, where if a parent decides to send their child to a private school they receive the part of their taxes back that goes towards public education.

On a personal note, I would like to see education completely private. That would end alot of the problems presently found in education. Things like lack of discipline, the use of the school system to indoctrinate, and lowering standards for the sake of self esteem.

ziggy wrote:

If we limited government to only that one section of the Constitution, we would be ignoring the rest of the Constitution- including the provisions for a president and a system of Courts.

The limitations article 1, section 8 set the limits to what the federal governemnt can and can't do. Yes, the president is given certain authorities and yes, the court system has various responsibilities. However, the mess we see in the halls of government today is the direct result of ignoring Article 1, section 8

So what do you think should be the function of the Courts if not to address questions of law and of the Constitution as those questions are brought to the Courts?

The function fo the courts are just as you said. However, since both the right and left fight of the appointments to the court system most justices are bias and ahve agenda to push. We see those agendas pushed from time to time, by the way. I want a court system that has as little bias as possible.

You do know that Justice O'Conner actually made the statement that she looked to other nations when rendering decisions on various cases before her. That's dangerous and it shows bias. If I take a matter before the court system, I certainly don't want rulings from a court in England to have influance on my case which is a question about the lasw of this nation.

Article 1 Section 8 is an enumerated list of duties for the Legislative branch Cato. The executive and judicial branches take their responsibilities from article 2 and 3 respectively.

The reason our founding fathers gave such a detailed list for the legislative branch is because they did not want them legislating with the purse strings.

Today, we are ruled by a federal government that says do what I say or we cut off the money. We've become exactly what our founding fathers feared.

It is kind of another check/balance of power.

The exec cannot spend it unless appropriated by the legislative.

sodbuster wrote:It is kind of another check/balance of power.

The exec cannot spend it unless appropriated by the legislative.

While that's true, that's not what you've been saying for the past two years and it's certainly not what you said regarding Reagan and Bush 1, both of whom spent what was legislated by democratic congresses and both increased the national debt by signing in democratic spending bills.

You also give credit to Bill Clinton for a surplus when it was Republicans who controlled the purse strings that led to the surplus.

Seems to me your true statement contradicts about everything you say regarding who is responsible for debt.

Aaron wrote:Article 1 Section 8 is an enumerated list of duties for the Legislative branch Cato. The executive and judicial branches take their responsibilities from article 2 and 3 respectively.

The reason our founding fathers gave such a detailed list for the legislative branch is because they did not want them legislating with the purse strings.

Today, we are ruled by a federal government that says do what I say or we cut off the money. We've become exactly what our founding fathers feared.

Maybe I wasn't as clear as I should have been, but you are right article 1 section 8 is an enumerated list for the legislative branch. My point is that the mess we see today, is the direct result of congresses and presidents completely ignoring the limitations of article 1, section 8. As far as spending goes, that doesn't happen without the vote and blessing of congress. Of course, the president can veto spending and unconstitutional measures, but that doesn't happen very often.

One thing the federalist and anti-federalist had in common was their resounding belief the legislative branch cannot legislate with the purse strings.

While the recognized the need for a strong central government, they also realized what happens when the central government has too much power, King George, and as such, they put in place provisions to restrict the powers given to the central government.
The TVA that Roosevelt created in his New Deal was actually proposed in 1816 and many of the same reasons New Dealers used to justify the TVA were written into a Federal Public Works bill, located here for any interested in reading, that called for new roads and canals in that same area.

The bill was vetoed by James Madison, highly recognized as the father of the constitution and part of his reasoning was the legislative spending and the power it would give congress if passed.

To refer the power in question to the clause "to provide for common defense and general welfare" would be contrary to the established and consistent rules of interpretation, as rendering the special and careful enumeration of powers which follow the clause nugatory and improper. Such a view of the Constitution would have the effect of giving to Congress a general power of legislation instead of the defined and limited one hitherto understood to belong to them, the terms "common defense and general welfare" embracing every object and act within the purview of a legislative trust. It would have the effect of subjecting both the Constitution and laws of the several States in all cases not specifically exempted to be superseded by laws of Congress, it being expressly declared "that the Constitution of the United States and laws made in pursuance thereof shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges of every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

Interestingly enough, the first major spending bills passed by Congress did not occur until the 1850's or 60's, long after all of our founding fathers had passed away, which I find ironic.

SheikBen wrote:Are you suggesting that we also ban political speech (that people disagree on), debates over the war, debates over capital punishment, etc., as people find those conversations every bit as frustrating as they do chats on religion.

How far do you want to take your call for censorship? Should we all be limited to singing Kumbaya and holding hands while eating tofu?

Only as far as the Constitution directs or allows at Article 1, Article 14, and elsewhere.

Aaron wrote:Interestingly enough, the first major spending bills passed by Congress did not occur until the 1850's or 60's, long after all of our founding fathers had passed away, which I find ironic.

Ben Franklin was asked what kind of a government they had given the people. His reply was a republic, now it was up to the public to keep it. It only took about 80 years to begin the corruption of our constitutional republic and limited government.

ziggy wrote:

SheikBen wrote:Are you suggesting that we also ban political speech (that people disagree on), debates over the war, debates over capital punishment, etc., as people find those conversations every bit as frustrating as they do chats on religion.

How far do you want to take your call for censorship? Should we all be limited to singing Kumbaya and holding hands while eating tofu?

Only as far as the Constitution directs or allows at Article 1, Article 14, and elsewhere.

Explain, because you just lost me?

SheikBen wrote:Ziggy,

You'll have to explain to me just exactly how valedictorians are representatives of the government. They were elected to nothing and have no legal authority over anyone. If a Valedictorian had the power, say, to arrest members of the audience or de fiat create laws, that would be one thing.

The poor girl or guy is stripped of their 1st amendment rights by virtue of their high grades. I should like a better reward.

When I graduated high school, we weer required to attend what was called a bacculeaurate service- a service separate and on a different day from the graduation ceremony. The bacculeaurate service was basically a mandated religious ceremony complete with clergy and sermon. The school principal told us, in an authoritarian tone, that if we expected to receive diplomas at the graduation ceremony we were expected to attend the "bacculeaurate" service. At that time I had not acquired the self-confidence to tell the principal to "fu-k off". But later someone or other did, and now those mandatory services are no longer held. But the wannabe religious indoctrinators still put student preachers at graduation ceremonies and let them preach away. Were it a private school, it would probably be OK. But putting forth such a program at a mandatory attendance public school event such as a graduation ceremony smacks of the old mandatory bacculeurate service.

Some of the best legal minds in the country have tried making the case in the Courts for your point of view, and have failed. It is not about free speech. It is about using government sponsored, virtually mandatory attendance events for religious prostelyzing.

Aaron wrote:

sodbuster wrote:It is kind of another check/balance of power.

The exec cannot spend it unless appropriated by the legislative.

While that's true, that's not what you've been saying for the past two years and it's certainly not what you said regarding Reagan and Bush 1, both of whom spent what was legislated by democratic congresses and both increased the national debt by signing in democratic spending bills.

You also give credit to Bill Clinton for a surplus when it was Republicans who controlled the purse strings that led to the surplus.

Seems to me your true statement contradicts about everything you say regarding who is responsible for debt.

Well Aaron of course your statement above appears to be true on its face.

However, like much of the commentary here, it is based on the false assumption that the contemporary de facto relationship between the three branches is the same as the purely de jure relationship that began to grow and evolve even during the terms of George Washington.

In my previous life I had opportunity to study this subject in some detail.

If this discussion continues, I will try to dig out my old textbook.

I cant remember the author right now, but the title was "Power and the Presidency".

As I tried to google the author I came across the following, which I believe is relevant.

http://www.wowessays.com/dbase/ae4/smr272.shtml

But in the beginning we had the basic framework of the Constitution, but it was not outlined how the three branches interact with each other.

For example, in the Beginning the Presidents did not even submit a legislative agenda to the Congress.

But nowadays the Administration is intricately involved from the time bills are introduced until it is signed by the President.

If you watch the legislative process now, you will see that the majority of those who testify before Congress on pending legislation are in fact representatives of the Administration.

In fact, oftentimes the bills themselves are drafted by representatives of the various agencies, and then are "shepherded" through the legislative process by those same people.

So the dividing line between Legislative and Executive is not nearly so clear after 200 years of "practice" as it was in the original "theory".

I know this is getting long and people are probably yawning by now but it is an interesting subject.

ziggy wrote:Only as far as the Constitution directs or allows at Article 1, Article 14, and elsewhere.

There's only 7 articles in the United States Constitution.

What constitution are you referring to?

[quote="Aaron"]

ziggy wrote:

SheikBen wrote:Only as far as the Constitution directs or allows at Article 1, Article 14, and elsewhere.

There's only 7 articles in the United States Constitution.

That is correct.

I meant Amendments 1 and 14.

That's a very interesting article Sodbuster and could make for interesting discussion.

I'm a firm believer in the power granted to Congress and I think all too often, they roll over and play dead for the President and in doing so, have relinquised their power.

Personally, I think they should take it back and our government should adhere to the powers granted to them by the constitution.