Happy Fourth of July!

ziggy wrote:

Stephanie wrote:That is where Ziggy and I part ways. Cato is entitled to do with his property as he sees fit. This includes being selective, even discriminatory, when renting an apartment or home.

For Cato it is not about being "entitled to do with his property as he sees fit". That is just a ruse. For Cato it is about trying to tell others how they should conduct themselves sexually in their bedrooms, when legally it is none of his business how they conduct themselves sexually in their bedrooms- even if they rent their homes from Cato.

Actually, Ziggy your absolutely correct! I don't approve of homosexuality, premarrital sex, or adultery. I will not allow those acts to take place on my property. Law or no, I will not do it, there is no more discussion in the matter. The difference between me and jerks like you is that I'm not running to the politicians to have them make laws to force one to participate in situations to which the disagree.

Let me ask you something. Would you open your home or allow your property to be used to recuit soldiers to fight in a war to which you disagree? I'll answer this for you. Hell NO you wonldn't and you'd fight to keep them from using your property if they tried to force you. Now, you can tell me otherwise and if you do, I'll call you a bold faced liar.

Secondly, you seem to be saying you have no authority to use your property as you deem fit. That may be true for you, but if I own something, if I pay taxes on it, my rules will apply on that property. I don't give a tinkers damn what you, Terry, Obama, or anyoneelse happens to think or want.

Except your property doesn't exist in a vacuum.

You have roads, water and other utilities, the infrastructure of which were paid for by other taxpayers, some of which were gay, black and/or unwed parents.

Hi TerryRC,

Hope you're well.

Is a man's property, then, never truly his own, as it is served by infrastructure?

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:

Stephanie wrote:That is where Ziggy and I part ways. Cato is entitled to do with his property as he sees fit. This includes being selective, even discriminatory, when renting an apartment or home.

For Cato it is not about being "entitled to do with his property as he sees fit". That is just a ruse. For Cato it is about trying to tell others how they should conduct themselves sexually in their bedrooms, when legally it is none of his business how they conduct themselves sexually in their bedrooms- even if they rent their homes from Cato.

Actually, Ziggy your absolutely correct! I don't approve of homosexuality, premarrital sex, or adultery. I will not allow those acts to take place on my property. Law or no, I will not do it, there is no more discussion in the matter. The difference between me and jerks like you is that I'm not running to the politicians to have them make laws to force one to participate in situations to which the disagree.

Let me ask you something. Would you open your home or allow your property to be used to recuit soldiers to fight in a war to which you disagree? I'll answer this for you. Hell NO you wonldn't and you'd fight to keep them from using your property if they tried to force you. Now, you can tell me otherwise and if you do, I'll call you a bold faced liar.

You can call me a bold faced liar, or call me a can of Campbell's soup- or whatever suits your need to call me names rather than own up to your mendacities.

My home is not a property that is on the market as a rental unit to the general public. So your anology is bogus.

But if I had a building with office space for rent, I would rent it for use as a military recruiting office, yes. Why not? Hell, government agencies often pay more for rental spaces than most anyone else anyway. And it's not like I could keep military recruiters away from my town by not renting to them anyway.

But anyway, military recruiters are not a class protected against discrimination by public law. Homosexuals are. And you've already said that you are willing to violate the laws when it suits your social authoritarian purposes to do so- using "Mr. Browning" and "Mr. Winchester" as your allies in crime.

Actually, Ziggy your absolutely correct! I don't approve of homosexuality, premarrital sex, or adultery. I will not allow those acts to take place on my property. Law or no, I will not do it, there is no more discussion in the matter. The difference between me and jerks like you is that I'm not running to the politicians to have them make laws to force one to participate in situations to which the disagree.

I'd like to know how you would prevent these acts from taking place in an apartment or house you rented to somebody else, Cato. I'm serious. Would you install hidden cameras? Would you post guards at the doors? The reality is that Americans have sex outside of marriage. Single people bring home one night stands they meet in bars. Sometimes, not only isn't the person they bring home a stranger, but that stranger is married, or the same gender.

You have this strong sense of right and wrong and it's all based upon what you think your god deems acceptable behavior. You have great faith in your god, why not let him be the judge. I mean, isn't that his job anyway?

Stephanie wrote:

Actually, Ziggy your absolutely correct! I don't approve of homosexuality, premarrital sex, or adultery. I will not allow those acts to take place on my property. Law or no, I will not do it, there is no more discussion in the matter. The difference between me and jerks like you is that I'm not running to the politicians to have them make laws to force one to participate in situations to which the disagree.

I'd like to know how you would prevent these acts from taking place in an apartment or house you rented to somebody else, Cato. I'm serious. Would you install hidden cameras? Would you post guards at the doors? The reality is that Americans have sex outside of marriage. Single people bring home one night stands they meet in bars. Sometimes, not only isn't the person they bring home a stranger, but that stranger is married, or the same gender.

You have this strong sense of right and wrong and it's all based upon what you think your god deems acceptable behavior. You have great faith in your god, why not let him be the judge. I mean, isn't that his job anyway?

In answer to your first question as to what is taking placing within the apartment that I rent, No I don't install cameras. I don't plan to ask either. If I know at the beginning that the couple is a practicing homosexual couple then I won't rent to them.

In answer to your second question, if you have friends that have friends that use cocaine from time to time and you don't use at all because of the possible legal problems that can arise, are you going to be around them when they use. The answer to that is no you are not, because you do choose to be a part of their actions. I don't choose to do things that make it look as if I accept homosexuality or adultery.

ziggy wrote:

But if I had a building with office space for rent, I would rent it for use as a military recruiting office, yes. Why not? Hell, government agencies often pay more for rental spaces than most anyone else anyway. And it's not like I could keep military recruiters away from my town by not renting to them anyway.

So you have no principles then. Your guide through life and measure of life is you ability to botain wealth. You are no better than the corporations and politicans you rail against.

ziggy wrote:But anyway, military recruiters are not a class protected against discrimination by public law. Homosexuals are. And you've already said that you are willing to violate the laws when it suits your social authoritarian purposes to do so- using "Mr. Browning" and "Mr. Winchester" as your allies in crime.

I see at least you understand this well

Except your property doesn't exist in a vacuum.

You have roads, water and other utilities, the infrastructure of which were paid for by other taxpayers, some of which were gay, black and/or unwed parents.

What is the prevailing legal authority for this view, Terry RC? Is it the 14th Amendment?

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:

But if I had a building with office space for rent, I would rent it for use as a military recruiting office, yes. Why not? Hell, government agencies often pay more for rental spaces than most anyone else anyway. And it's not like I could keep military recruiters away from my town by not renting to them anyway.

So you have no principles then. Your guide through life and measure of life is you ability to botain wealth. You are no better than the corporations and politicans you rail against.

You are too quick to judge who does or does not have principles. Among the principles of our society is that we are entitled to earn what wealth we can fairly acquire. It is not an abandonment of principles to earn wealth. If I have fairly acquired a rental property through work and thrift, I am entitled to earn some wealth from that if I can do so fairly. Whether I rent that property to a fundamentalist church (which I once did with a property I own- about 20 years ago), or to a military recruiter, or to the Devil himself, does not mean that I do not have principles. It can mean, however, that certain of our principles clash with certain other of our principles. And in a very large and real sense that is life- the prioritization of conflicting principles and of our conflicting interests.

ziggy wrote:But anyway, military recruiters are not a class protected against discrimination by public law. Homosexuals are. And you've already said that you are willing to violate the laws when it suits your social authoritarian purposes to do so- using "Mr. Browning" and "Mr. Winchester" as your allies in crime.

I see at least you understand this well.

I was just repeating what you said about the authority of Browning and Winchester behind your agenda. The history books and American legends are full of characters who thought all they needed was Browning, Winchester, and Smith & Wesson and to hell with the law.

Those who live by the sword shall die by the sword. But it's your life, not mine. So whatever.

ziggy wrote: I was just repeating what you said about the authority of Browning and Winchester behind your agenda. The history books and American legends are full of characters who thought all they needed was Browning, Winchester, and Smith & Wesson and to hell with the law.

Those who live by the sword shall die by the sword. But it's your life, not mine. So whatever.

You might just want to remember that the liberty you have enjoyed to this point was won by people who took up arms and said to hell with the law. But then again that wouldn't matter to an unprincipled 60's hippie like you.

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote: I was just repeating what you said about the authority of Browning and Winchester behind your agenda. The history books and American legends are full of characters who thought all they needed was Browning, Winchester, and Smith & Wesson and to hell with the law.

Those who live by the sword shall die by the sword. But it's your life, not mine. So whatever.

You might just want to remember that the liberty you have enjoyed to this point was won by people who took up arms and said to hell with the law. But then again that wouldn't matter to an unprincipled 60's hippie like you.

I quote the great rebels Thomas Jefferson, John Adama and James Madison far more often than you do here. And more often than not, you are on some side opposite what Jefferson's and Adam's and Madison's words support. And you would use your Browning and Winchester to destroy what the Founders won and built. So what Jefferson and his ilk thought and won IS very much more important to me than to you.

Also, what is a "60s hippie"? In the 1960s I was working, getting married, having children, etc. I was not doing drugs, nor living in a commune, nor being a non-conformist in anything other than opposition to a war in which the USA was the un-provoked aggressor whose then President invented all manner of lies as excuses to go to war half way around the world. So if that war opposition makes me a "60s hippie", then I am proud to be so identified. Unprincipled? I had and have more principles than you and Lyndon Johnson ever thought about having. I am not trying to use my God and my guns to make the world believe as I do and act as my God tells me they should. That is your agenda.

I, too, believe in revolution. But my tools of revolution are ballots, and not bullets. If that makes me "un-principled", then call me un-principled. And if that's what a "hippie" does, then being a "hippie" is the American way.

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote: I was just repeating what you said about the authority of Browning and Winchester behind your agenda. The history books and American legends are full of characters who thought all they needed was Browning, Winchester, and Smith & Wesson and to hell with the law.

Those who live by the sword shall die by the sword. But it's your life, not mine. So whatever.

You might just want to remember that the liberty you have enjoyed to this point was won by people who took up arms and said to hell with the law. But then again that wouldn't matter to an unprincipled 60's hippie like you.

And what those Founders "won" and established was a republic- which you apparently hold in great contempt. I too am a revolutionary. But the tools of revolution in a republic are ballots, not bullets. So if you and Mr. Browning and Mr. Winchester would destroy the republic won by the Founders simply because you don't get you way at the ballot box and in other people's bedrooms, then we have to ask ourselves who is really so "unprincipled" as to not appreciate the works of Jefferson, Madison and Adams among the many Founders.

ziggy wrote: And what those Founders "won" and established was a republic- which you apparently hold in great contempt. I too am a revolutionary. But the tools of revolution in a republic are ballots, not bullets. So if you and Mr. Browning and Mr. Winchester would destroy the republic won by the Founders simply because you don't get you way at the ballot box and in other people's bedrooms, then we have to ask ourselves who is really so "unprincipled" as to not appreciate the works of Jefferson, Madison and Adams among the many Founders.

The founders established a constitutional republic which unprincipled revolutionaries like you have long since destoryed. We are little more that an oligarchy as defined by Robert Michels.

What galls me the most here is that you are too stupid to even discuss this in a reasonable manner. You make accusations like I'm going to spy on people I rent to, which is blantantly false, but then again it is really the only arguement you have. You then tell me, the homosexual's rights trump my rights, and arguement that would make the founders turn over thier grave. The founders intended our rights to be equal and to apply equally to each other, maybe you skipped over that part in history. You label me an authoritarian and yet it is you, not me, that condones the use of the force of government to force me to to comply with policy to which I disagree and wish not to participate in. Not once have I ever, ever stated that the government should force my views on anyone else, neither would I ever condone such a thing.

Oh, but that you enlist the support of Mr. Browning and Mr. Winchester speaks volumes about how you would force your agenda on everyone.

I didn't say that you were going to spy on anyone. But as you say you would not rent your property to homosexuals or adulterers, I do wonder how you would determine who is and is not a homosexual or an adulterer.

The founders established a constitutional republic which unprincipled revolutionaries like you have long since destoryed.

I am not the one proposing to take up arms and saying to hell with the law.

ziggy wrote:Oh, but that you enlist the support of Mr. Browning and Mr. Winchester speaks volumes about how you would force your agenda on everyone.

I didn't say that you were going to spy on anyone. But as you say you would not rent your property to homosexuals or adulterers, I do wonder how you would determine who is and is not a homosexual or an adulterer.

I answered that question for Stephanie, I guess you'll have to exert a little effort an read my answer to her.

ziggy wrote:

The founders established a constitutional republic which unprincipled revolutionaries like you have long since destoryed.

I am not the one proposing to take up arms and saying to hell with the law.

That's right and it is going to be people like me who are completely fed up with unprincipled jerks using the force of government to extort the fruit of our labor and then demand we participate in policy which we find abhorant who will restore the constitutional republic. Now if you think I'm peeved, let me tell you Ziggy, I'm very mild in my view to some of the people I talk to or know. Most are average folks who have never really cared much for politics. Like me they are sick of beign told what they can and can't do with their proeprty or their lives. They are sick of having what they have worked for taken to be redistributed to people and corperations who won't work or want the government to clean up their mess.

As far as the law goes, we have no objective law anymore. That was tossed out the window years ago by supreme court justices who used the bench to legislate.

They are sick of having what they have worked for taken to be redistributed to people and corperations who won't work or want the government to clean up their mess.

Well, at least you now admit that corporations are mooching off the rest of us. That's progress.

As far as the law goes, we have no objective law anymore.

When and where was there ever any what you woud agree was "objective" law- anytime or anywhere?

That was tossed out the window years ago by supreme court justices who used the bench to legislate.

Can you cite an example of when and how the SC "used the bench to legislate"? Remember, it is the Constitution that appoints the Courts to settle questions of the Constitution and of the law. Courts do not act of their own initiative. Courts act only is response to questions of law and of the Constitution that are brought before the bench for adjudication. "They legislated from the bench" is but a political euphemism for "I disagree with what the Court says".

Kelo v New London

ziggy wrote:

As far as the law goes, we have no objective law anymore.

When and where was there ever any what you woud agree was "objective" law- anytime or anywhere?

The speed limit is 55 mph, that is an example of objective law. If one plans a murder and commits the act that is murder in the 1st. There is another example.

That was tossed out the window years ago by supreme court justices who used the bench to legislate.

Can you cite an example of when and how the SC "used the bench to legislate"? Remember, it is the Constitution that appoints the Courts to settle questions of the Constitution and of the law. Courts do not act of their own initiative. Courts act only is response to questions of law and of the Constitution that are brought before the bench for adjudication. "They legislated from the bench" is but a political euphemism for "I disagree with what the Court says". [/quote]

Roe v Wade, created a right that doesn't exist and worse still entered into an area belonging to the states.

During FDR the New Deal was held to be unconstitutional until FDR threatened to stack the court. Then all of sudden it wasn't unconstitutional anymore.

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:

As far as the law goes, we have no objective law anymore.

When and where was there ever any what you woud agree was "objective" law- anytime or anywhere?

The speed limit is 55 mph, that is an example of objective law.

Some people disagree that 55 MPH is an "objective" speed limit. Some people think it is arbitrary and too high, others think it is too slow. And the speed laws are different from state to state. Are all those various speed laws objective? Or are they mostly the results of compromises made in the course of legislative deliberations?

If one plans a murder and commits the act that is murder in the 1st. There is another example.

Every alleged "murder" is different- because the circumstances are different. One person's "murder" is often another person's self-defense. And laws about murder, too, are the results of compromises made is the course of legislation. And they change from time to time.

In a real sense, how "objective" the laws about murder are often depends on whether one is the alleged perpetrator, or a family member of the person who was killed. So what is objective law is "objective" only in the eyes of the beholders.

Roe v Wade, created a right that doesn't exist ..................................

What right? The right to privacy? That is what you happen to believe. Other people believe differently- that the right to privacy is embedded in the 9th and other Amendments.

............................ and worse still entered into an area belonging to the states.

That is what you happen to believe. And I agree with you on that. But again, other people believe differently. Constitutionally, when questions of law and of the Constitution are brought to the Courts, they have to decide one way or another. That you or I agree or disagree with decisions of the Courts does not mean that the Courts have made law- only that they have declared that existing laws are or are not constitutional. In Roe V. Wade, the Court determined that the law in question was not constitutional.

When questions of law and the Constitution are brought to the Courts, they have to decide one way or another. Sometimes Courts say it is a federal issue, and rule accordingly. Other times, the Courts kick is back to the state as not being a federal issue.

During FDR the New Deal was held to be unconstitutional until FDR threatened to stack the court. Then all of sudden it wasn't unconstitutional anymore.

And again, that is a function of the Constitution. And surely the Founders realized that the Courts are made up of people- and that people can change their minds, and people can be wrong as well as right.

Kelo v New London

I disagreed with the Court on this case. But no new law was made- other than that the records of all Court rulings are called "case law". The Courts ruled that the takings clause of the Constitution applied to the case at hand- that "public purpose" includes taking of private property by a private entity for what the state (city of New London in this case) deemed to be a public purpose of "economic development". While I disagree with the Court in this case, it is not creating new law. It simply decided, in a case brought before it, that private economic development as determined by the City of New London qualified as a "public purpose" for purposes of a "take" under the Constitution.

ziggy wrote:

Kelo v New London

I disagreed with the Court on this case. But no new law was made- other than that the records of all Court rulings are called "case law". The Courts ruled that the takings clause of the Constitution applied to the case at hand- that "public purpose" includes taking of private property by a private entity for what the state (city of New London in this case) deemed to be a public purpose of "economic development". While I disagree with the Court in this case, it is not creating new law. It simply decided, in a case brought before it, that private economic development as determined by the City of New London qualified as a "public purpose" for purposes of a "take" under the Constitution.

When a judge provides new meaning to the words of the Constitution, after over 200 years of case law, particularly without scientific evidence the ways of the past were wrong, that is legislating from the bench to me. Perhaps you and every other American citizen takes the phrase, "legislate from the bench" in some other manner, but that is what it means to me. Kelo v New London fits the bill precisely.

Judges can legislate from the bench in other manners, as well. For example, SCOTUS strips away from the States what has always been theirs, that too is legislating from the bench. Roe v Wade fits that bill. If it isn't spelled out in the Constitution, it belongs to the States, because the Constitution says so.

ziggy wrote:

Some people disagree that 55 MPH is an "objective" speed limit. Some people think it is arbitrary and too high, others think it is too slow. And the speed laws are different from state to state. Are all those various speed laws objective? Or are they mostly the results of compromises made in the course of legislative deliberations?

That's all nice, but the fact remains the law is set at a specific and measurable point.

ziggy wrote:Every alleged "murder" is different- because the circumstances are different. One person's "murder" is often another person's self-defense. And laws about murder, too, are the results of compromises made is the course of legislation. And they change from time to time.

In a real sense, how "objective" the laws about murder are often depends on whether one is the alleged perpetrator, or a family member of the person who was killed. So what is objective law is "objective" only in the eyes of the beholders.

As usual you compare apples to oranges. The law states that if one plans the murder of another it is murder in the first.

ziggy wrote:What right? The right to privacy? That is what you happen to believe. Other people believe differently- that the right to privacy is embedded in the 9th and other Amendments.

All I can say is you need to do some research without your blinders on. By the way you define the ninth amendment and the so called right to privacy, there would be no law and no protections. For example, if int he privacy of my home I killed my elderly parents, because they had become a burden to me, it would be legal.

ziggy wrote:That is what you happen to believe. And I agree with you on that. But again, other people believe differently. Constitutionally, when questions of law and of the Constitution are brought to the Courts, they have to decide one way or another. That you or I agree or disagree with decisions of the Courts does not mean that the Courts have made law- only that they have declared that existing laws are or are not constitutional. In Roe V. Wade, the Court determined that the law in question was not constitutional.

The issue of abortion was shrouded in the issue of privacy. The issue of abortion itself, belongs to the states. Constitutionally, nothing within the US Constitution even remotely addresses the issue.

ziggy wrote:When questions of law and the Constitution are brought to the Courts, they have to decide one way or another. Sometimes Courts say it is a federal issue, and rule accordingly. Other times, the Courts kick is back to the state as not being a federal issue.

The courts also have a standard they are to measure law to. That does not give them any authority to write or rewrite law.

ziggy wrote:

During FDR the New Deal was held to be unconstitutional until FDR threatened to stack the court. Then all of sudden it wasn't unconstitutional anymore.

And again, that is a function of the Constitution. And surely the Founders realized that the Courts are made up of people- and that people can change their minds, and people can be wrong as well as right.

The people have the right to change their minds at the polling booth by putting representatives in office that will legislate in a manner suitable to the people. The courts do not have that authority.