Re: House Passes Mandatory National Service Bill

by Aaron Wed Apr 08, 2009 1:43 pm

You're the bozo trying to say the court didn't say what the court said because it doesn't fit your particular need at this time Ziggy.

The constitution says what it says and I'm smart enough to understand it, even if you aren't.

by **SheikBen** Wed Apr 08, 2009 2:02 pm

Where in the Constitution do you find the power of judicial review?

Interpretation of the law is not the same as legislative behavior.

by ziggy Wed Apr 08, 2009 6:02 pm

Aaron wrote:You're the bozo trying to say the court didn't say what the court said because it doesn't fit your particular need at this time Ziggy.

The constitution says what it says and I'm smart enough to understand it, even if you aren't.

Yeah, about like Cato is smart enough to be the only person who can make an honest understanding of the Bible. How do we know that? Because he says so- just as you do here.

Your arrogance knows no limit.

As to what the court said, I will take the actual words of the Court over your spin on it any day.

by ziggy Wed Apr 08, 2009 6:12 pm

SheikBen wrote:Where in the Constitution do you find the power of judicial review?

Judicial review in the United States refers to the power of a court to review the actions of public sector bodies in terms of their lawfulness, or to review the constitutionality of a statute or treaty, or to review an administrative regulation for consistency with either a statute, a treaty, or the Constitution itself.

At the federal level, there is no power of judicial review explicitly established in the United States Constitution, but the doctrine has been inferred from the structure of that document.[1] At the time of the 1787 Constitutional Convention, five of the thirteen States included some form of judicial review or judicial veto in their state Constitutions. Delegates at 1787's Constitutional Convention, including South Carolina's Charles Pinckney, spoke out against the doctrine of judicial review. The Constitution states in Article III:

"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 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....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."

Since the 1803 legal case Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court has understood that it has a power of judicial review, in order to apply the Constitution to particular cases.[2] This does not mean, however, that the judiciary decides the meaning of the text of the Constitution. Article VI requires all public officials in the other branches of government to be bound "by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution," and the officials of the other branches of government have almost always respected the Court's interpretations, even when disagreeing with them, on the premise that the Court's interpretations of the Constitution have been in good faith.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review_in_the_United_States

by ziggy Wed Apr 08, 2009 10:42 pm

Or are you stating that the Supreme Court did not take the stance through case law that corporations enjoyed the same rights as private citizens such as entering into a contract, owning property and the ability to be sued among other rights of personal citizens?

No, I am not stating that. And that is something different than you were saying a day or so ago that the Supreme Court had ruled.

by SamCogar Thu Apr 09, 2009 5:41 am

Forget it you all.

You permitted Ziggy to interject so many new and unrelated variables that he is now in his usual “Roundhouse Retorting” mode and no matter what you post he will cite some previous statement you made concerning one of said “unrelated variables”.

You will never be able to “pin him down” now because he will just keep “going in circles” to evade your new statements.

House Passes Mandatory National Service Bill - Page 7 33948

.

by Aaron Thu Apr 09, 2009 6:52 am

I know what Ziggy said and I know he's trying to play word games Sam because that's ALL Ziggy can do.

He's flat out wrong and he knows it. And what's worse, is he knows we know it which is precisely why he responded like the prissy little beatch he is.

ziggy wrote:You are a goddamned liar.

He’s so predictable.

by **Stephanie** Thu Apr 09, 2009 1:38 pm

ziggy wrote:
Stephanie wrote:So the government spending billions of dollars on "mandatory volunteer programs" that will indoctrinate our youth into socialism is of no concern to you. I wish I could say I'm surprised.

Well, a few minutes ago you said GIVE would mean forced child labor. Does it or doesn't it?

As to "socialism", we have all been forced fed the doctrine of socialsim- corporate socialism- all our lives. But for the authority vested in corporations by government- corporations would not exist- nor would we be burdened with their greater and greater demands for government blessed powers and now which include powers to dip virtually at will from the public treasury.

GIVE will mean forced child labor. It will also mean indoctrination of our youth.

by ziggy Thu Apr 09, 2009 2:46 pm

I know what Ziggy said and I know he's trying to play word games Sam because that's ALL Ziggy can do.

Word game addict, heal thyself first.

If you can't play word games without whining when you can't keep up, then you need to find a hobby otherr than on-line forums.

by Aaron Thu Apr 09, 2009 9:31 pm

I don't have to play word games because I'm not scared to admit what I am and what my beliefs are.

by ziggy Thu Apr 09, 2009 10:00 pm

Aaron wrote:I don't have to play word games because I'm not scared to admit what I am and what my beliefs are.

So if not for that reason, then why do you play word games- when you obviously are such a a lousy player at it.

by SamCogar Fri Apr 10, 2009 4:10 am

ziggy wrote:
I know what Ziggy said and I know he's trying to play word games Sam because that's ALL Ziggy can do.

Word game addict, heal thyself first.

If you can't play word games without whining when you can't keep up, then you need to find a hobby otherr than on-line forums.

Ziggy's habit of primarily replying with a "You are guilty of it also" ........ that I believe if you accused him of getting great sex from his wife ........ that he would reply with ........ "Sex addict, you get it first.".

House Passes Mandatory National Service Bill - Page 7 197570

.

by Aaron Fri Apr 10, 2009 9:13 am

Ziggy is like the little kid in the school yard with snot running from his nose crying (likely because of his gold star Razz

) "I'm rubber you're glue..." because that's the only response he has.

by **SheikBen** Fri Apr 10, 2009 9:23 am

Hi Zig,

Your posting of wikipedia material (the fount of all knowledge:) not withstanding, judicial review was a power that the Supreme Court gave to itself in Marbury v Madison. The Constitution does not state that the courts may strike down a law as unconstitutional, and it surely does not say anywhere that the federal courts should be able to police the content of a high school graduation speaker.

In fact, it is quite the opposite that the 1st amendment intended, protecting the states and the people from the central government.

by ziggy Fri Apr 10, 2009 11:39 pm

SheikBen wrote:Hi Zig,

Your posting of wikipedia material (the fount of all knowledge:) not withstanding,

So are you denying what Wikipedia says about judicial review? If not, what's your point about Wikipedia?

judicial review was a power that the Supreme Court gave to itself in Marbury v Madison. The Constitution does not state that the courts may strike down a law as unconstitutional, ...........................................

Then what do you think this means:

Article III - The Judicial Branch

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.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Article3

by ziggy Fri Apr 10, 2009 11:51 pm

SamCogar wrote:
ziggy wrote:
I know what Ziggy said and I know he's trying to play word games Sam because that's ALL Ziggy can do.

Word game addict, heal thyself first.

If you can't play word games without whining when you can't keep up, then you need to find a hobby otherr than on-line forums.

Ziggy's habit of primarily replying with a "You are guilty of it also" ........ that I believe if you accused him of getting great sex from his wife ........ that he would reply with ........ "Sex addict, you get it first.".

.

And what that means is that Aaron is a hipocrit for whining about "word games'- mostly because Aaron can't keep up in even the simplest word games- without resorting to pitiful gratituous attempts at personal insult. But I have been married to Ms. Ziggy for 42 years, and he can't hold a candle to her. I am immune to it. So Aaron needs to either quit trying to play word games, or develop a backbone and learn to compete with the word game champs.

As to "great sex", Sam, the worst I ever had was still great. Eat your heart out.

by Aaron Fri Apr 10, 2009 11:52 pm

I don't play games Ziggy. I merely point out you're wrong when you're wrong and show you for the wus you are. It's not my fault that everything you post is wrong.

by ziggy Sat Apr 11, 2009 1:37 am

See, I told you so ....................................

lol!

by TerryRC Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 am

She EARNED the right to the podium and as her speech DID NOT violate the 1st Amendment, she was the victim here.

Nothing could be more simple.

She earned the right to give a speech and thank god, not to call others to do so.

From the ruling I cited earlier:

As such, any teacher, faculty, or student can pray in school, in accordance with their own religion. However, they may not lead such prayers in class, or in other "official" school settings such as assemblies or programs,

Graduation ceremonies are "programs".

The school was merely following the law.

For you, Cato, and I, it appears to mean the ability to say what you want when you want to, and to do what you want with the property that you have.

For Terry and Ziggy it appears to mean something quite different.

Yes. Terry and Ziggy hate liberty SO MUCH!

If I own a restaurant that blatantly refuses to serve blacks, that should be OK?

If I want to use the school podium to call people to worship Allah, that would be OK?

I want the most freedom for all of us, not just white christian heteros.

by Aaron Sat Apr 11, 2009 8:52 am

ziggy wrote:See, I told you so ....................................

And my daddy makes more then yours.

Yada yada yada.

I'm pretty sure you got beat up quite a bit as a child.

by **SheikBen** Sat Apr 11, 2009 8:54 am

And there is the point, Terry. If a Muslim valedictorian wants to thank Allah, that should be his/her 1st amendment right.

Whether a Muslim, a communist, a fascist, or a Nazi, the right to free speech is the right to free speech. It ought not be precluded by a high GPA or the vote of your fellow classmates.

Just as anyone at a graduation speech can, and surely do, tune out those that are boring or "offensive."

I've said this repeatedly, Terry. There are city-sponsored banners in Chicago that wish you a Happy Eid (which is the feast that ends Ramadan), and I do not mind IN THE LEAST.

Because freedom to express yourself is more important than my so-called "freedom" not to be offended or not to see anything I don't like.

You like the idea of censoring graduation speeches, but surely you'd hate it if someone considering censoring certain research processes, wouldn't you? I know that you would have sided with Scopes in Tennessee--why do you want the censorship that tried to silence Scopes extend to a graduation speaker? Both are instances in which an individual wishes to say something and yet big brother wishes to silence them.

In both cases it was bullpoo, but because you like what Scopes had to say, and dislike what the graduation speaker has to say, you justify one and not the other.

by Aaron Sat Apr 11, 2009 9:38 am

The girl wasn't leading a program Terry, she was giving a speech and she still has her 1st amendment rights, both to free speech and to her freedom to exercise her religion.

Your reference would come into play if the Principal or MC were to instruct everyone in the audience to bow their head and pray, not the speech of a speaker.

Sorry but you're wrong here.

by ziggy Sat Apr 11, 2009 10:53 am

Aaron wrote:
ziggy wrote:See, I told you so ....................................

And my daddy makes more then yours.

Yada yada yada.

I'm pretty sure you got beat up quite a bit as a child.

See, I told you so again.

And he pisses and moans about "word games".

by Cato Sat Apr 11, 2009 11:27 am

TerryRC wrote:

Yes. Terry and Ziggy hate liberty SO MUCH!

Actually, you haven't clue what liberty is about.

TerryRC wrote:If I own a restaurant that blatantly refuses to serve blacks, that should be OK?

The working words are, YOU OWN. If you believe in Liberty then the answer has to be yes. If a person chooses not to serve blacks, it is their property and they should have every right to determine how the property is used and who can and can't be on or in it, No matter how disgusting you or I find their attitude.

TerryRC wrote:If I want to use the school podium to call people to worship Allah, that would be OK?

Again if you believe in liberty, the answer is yes. You have every right to speak your mind, just as I have every right not to listen to you or to walk away.

TerryRC wrote:I want the most freedom for all of us, not just white christian heteros.

No TerryRC what you want is a world the conforms to your view. First of all you cannot legislate racism, religious hatred, or homophobia out of existance. When you try all you succeed in doing is taking freedoms away from everyone. Governmental intervention, no matter how well intentioned only makes matters worse. Only a change of heart is going to accomplish the removal of racism and hatred and government can't accomplish that. The best alternative is to accept that nature's God has endowed every human being with the right of life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness. While we may not like what is being said or done, we need to respect and defend one's right to hold the views they do.

by SamCogar Sat Apr 11, 2009 11:58 am

TerryRC wrote: From the ruling I cited earlier:

As such, any teacher, faculty, or student can pray in school, in accordance with their own religion. However, they may not lead such prayers in class, or in other "official" school settings such as assemblies or programs,

Graduation ceremonies are "programs".

The school was merely following the law.

And Graduation Speeches by Honor Students ..... are prayers, ...... HUH?

TRC, you are one pathetic dude, you are.

.

by Sponsored content