Re: And again, speaking of ethics ..............

by Cato Mon May 11, 2009 2:29 pm

ziggy wrote:

Abortion is a moral issue. The Courts are not in the busines of determining morality. The Courts are in the business of making legal and/or constitutional determinations in matters involving the law and the Constitution.

Constitutionally the Dred Dcott decision was spot on; the Constitution specifically condoned slavery.

Roe V Wade, like Dred Scott, was morally wrong but constitutionally correct, in my opinion. The cure for Dred Scott was the 13th Amendment. The cure for Roe V Wade would be a Constitutional Amendment against abortion- and which I would support.

First, most issues of law are moral. Theft is a moral issue, as is murder, slavery, and rape. Abortion is an issue of rights, the right to life to be exact. As far of the Constitution goes, it does not grant or create rights, it only codifies them. The rights we have exist beyond the US Constitution or any other legal document for that matter.

The ultimate cure for Roe v Wade isn't found in law. The ultimate cure is found in changing the hearts of minds of the public. However, in the mean time the Roe v Wade is an assault on the rights of the states. The only solution, and it isn't the greatest, is for Roe v Wade to be overturned and the matter taken up in the Statehouses.

by ziggy Mon May 11, 2009 4:26 pm

Why can't you accept that you are wrong?

I do not accept that I am wrong just because Aaron says so.

The Constitution agrees with me and it agreed with the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case.

by **Stephanie** Mon May 11, 2009 6:52 pm

Ziggy,

Explain to me where in the Constitution it says the states have no authority to implement and enforce laws prohibiting the murder of our unborn citizens.

SCOTUS got it wrong, just as SCOTUS was wrong in Kelo vs the City of New London and other cases.

by Aaron Mon May 11, 2009 8:59 pm

Aaron didn't say Scott wasn't a United States Citizen recognized by the Constitution thus he had no right to sue in federal court.

The Supreme Court did.

Or are you disputing that as that's the only way you could be right.

So are you disputing that slaves were not recognized as citizens according to the Supreme Court?

by ziggy Mon May 11, 2009 10:48 pm

Constitutionally slaves were property, and which, under the 5th Amendment, could not be taken away from their owners without due process of law.

by ziggy Mon May 11, 2009 10:49 pm

Stephanie wrote:Ziggy,

Explain to me where in the Constitution it says the states have no authority to implement and enforce laws prohibiting the murder of our unborn citizens.

It appears that, constitutionally, one is not a citizen until he/she is born.

" All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. "

by ziggy Mon May 11, 2009 10:57 pm

So are you disputing that slaves were not recognized as citizens according to the Supreme Court?

No, I am not not disputing that.

Aaron didn't say Scott wasn't a United States Citizen recognized by the Constitution thus he had no right to sue in federal court.

But you said the Supreme Court was wrong to even hear the case. But until it heard the case and ruled, there had been no determination that Scott had no right to sue in federal court. Only after the Court ruled in Scott v. Sanford was there a binding precedent that slaves were not citizens and had no right to sue in federal court.

by **Stephanie** Mon May 11, 2009 11:22 pm

ziggy wrote:
Stephanie wrote:Ziggy,

Explain to me where in the Constitution it says the states have no authority to implement and enforce laws prohibiting the murder of our unborn citizens.

It appears that, constitutionally, one is not a citizen until he/she is born.

" All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. "

Yet SCOTUS extends Constitutional rights and comforts to noncitizens......guest workers, legal immigrants, illegal aliens. Being a "citizen" isn't necessarily required to be protected by our Constitution. So why is a criminal illegal alien in California more deserving of those luxuries than the unborn child of a woman in this nation?

SCOTUS got this wrong.

by SamCogar Tue May 12, 2009 5:14 am

ziggy wrote:
SamCogar wrote: Aaron, Zigster is noted for ..... pulling a partial phrase out of a Legal Statute ........ and then claiming it applies to everything from ...... taking a crap ..... to flying to the moon. [/center].

So Sam, if you think that means something other than what it says, then tell us what you think it does mean.

Zigster, it is not a question of "what I think it means", ..... it was a definitive statement made by me that was based on the fact that I absolutely, positively know what it means.

Ziggy, I have no idea why you waste your time and other people's time ..... asking questions when you have no intent whatsoever of learning anything. That is, other than getting your jollies by being a PITA.

.

by SamCogar Tue May 12, 2009 5:42 am

Cato wrote: First, most issues of law are moral. Theft is a moral issue, as is murder, slavery, and rape. Abortion is an issue of rights, the right to life to be exact.

Willy, then there are a lot of people who want their cake ..... and eat it too.

All issues of Law and the "rights" of a person or persons are determined by the opinions of the controlling individual(s).

.

by Aaron Tue May 12, 2009 6:16 am

ziggy wrote:
So are you disputing that slaves were not recognized as citizens according to the Supreme Court?

No, I am not not disputing that.

Aaron didn't say Scott wasn't a United States Citizen recognized by the Constitution thus he had no right to sue in federal court.

But you said the Supreme Court was wrong to even hear the case.

The Supreme Court justices said that before they decided the merits of the case. That was the first decision they made.

The Court first had to decide whether it had jurisdiction. Article III, Section 2, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution provides that "the judicial Power shall extend... to Controversies... between Citizens of different States..." The Court first held that Scott was not a "citizen of a state" within the meaning of the United States Constitution, as that term was understood at the time the Constitution was adopted, and therefore not able to bring suit in federal court. Furthermore, whether a person is a citizen of a state, for Article III purposes, was strictly a federal question. This meant that although any state could confer state citizenship on an individual for purposes of state law, no state could confer state citizenship on an individual for purposes of Article III. In other words, the federal courts did not have to look to whom a state conferred citizenship when interpreting the words "citizen of... a state" in the federal Constitution. Rather, it was the federal courts who were to determine who was a citizen of a state for Article III purposes.

Thus, whether Missouri recognized Scott as a citizen was irrelevant. Taney summed up,

"Consequently, no State, since the adoption of the Constitution, can by naturalizing an alien invest him with the rights and privileges secured to a citizen of a State under the Federal Government, although, so far as the State alone was concerned, he would undoubtedly be entitled to the rights of a citizen, and clothed with all the rights and immunities which the Constitution and laws of the State attached to that character."
This meant that

"no State can, by any act or law of its own, passed since the adoption of the Constitution, introduce a new member into the political community created by the Constitution of the United States."
The only relevant question, therefore, was whether, at the time the Constitution was ratified, Scott could have been considered a citizen of any state within the meaning of Article III. According to the Court, the drafters of the Constitution had viewed all African-Americans as

"beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect."
The Court also presented an argument describing the feared results of granting Mr. Scott's petition:

"It would give to persons of the negro race, ...the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, ...the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went."
Scott was not a citizen of Missouri, and the federal courts therefore lacked jurisdiction to hear the dispute.

source

And at that point, the case should have been thrown out as federal court had no jurisdiction since Scott was not a recognized citizen of Missouri.

So explain WHY the court would hear a case in which they themselves determined they had no jurisdiction.

by SamCogar Tue May 12, 2009 6:45 am

Cato wrote: However, in the mean time the Roe v Wade is an assault on the rights of the states. The only solution, and it isn't the greatest, is for Roe v Wade to be overturned and the matter taken up in the Statehouses.

Well now, everyone of you that is concerned/interested in the above ........ should be keeping your eyes closely on the following ..... because of the splattering of the feces which has just been tossed into the "States Rights" fan by said.

They are aiming at a specific issue ......... but LORDY, LORDY, ..... the far flung ramifications of said will most likely force the US Supreme Court to publically declare the COTUS "null n' void" if it chooses not to recognize it as "the Law of the Land".

To wit:

Montana Defies Federal Government on Gun Laws - 11 May 2009

Montana has exerted its state sovereignty by passing a new gun law that allows it to dodge the Federal government’s Interstate Commerce Law regulating gun control. The state contends that guns manufactured and sold in Montana, and thereby crossing no state lines, are exempt from federal requirements that require conducting background checks, and licensing dealers. The guns would be stamped, “Made in Montana.”

The bill passed by the state legislature, was signed into law by Democratic Governor Brian Schweitzer. Utah and Texas are eying the law and could pass similar ones, setting off what could spark a major legal confrontation with the federal government.

The result could be a possible overturning of a 1942 Supreme Court decision of Wickard v Filburn, a landmark case that has been invoked to impose federal law over state commerce.

http://uprisingradio.org/home/?p=7756

Utah legislators eye Montana gun law - May 4th, 2009

SALT LAKE CITY -- Utah lawmakers are considering following Montana's lead and claiming state's rights in the war over gun control.

The Montana Legislature passed and its governor signed into law a measure making guns that are made and kept within state boundaries exempt from federal regulations. That means they're exempt from things like background checks, licensing and registration.

Several Utah lawmakers want to do the same thing here. They say President Barack Obama and the Congress are anti-gun and will infringe on states' rights.

Rep. Carl Wimmer, R-Herriman, tells the Salt Lake Tribune he or another Utah lawmaker will introduce a similar measure next year.

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=6367553

If the USSC upholds the legality of Montana's Legislation ....... then their decision will open up Pandora's Box for possible similar Legislation involving States Rights from all the States negating any and/or all Federal Statutes that have been "piggy-backed" onto the Interstate Commerce Laws. etc., etc.

lol!

......

And again, speaking of ethics .............. - Page 3 46059

And again, speaking of ethics .............. - Page 3 249131

And again, speaking of ethics .............. - Page 3 197570

And again, speaking of ethics .............. - Page 3 33948

And ps: You should note that the major and even minor/local medias have been deafeningly silent on this matter and if it wasn't for Fox's Glenn Beck I would not have heard about it.

cheers

by Cato Tue May 12, 2009 7:16 am

SamCogar wrote:
Cato wrote: However, in the mean time the Roe v Wade is an assault on the rights of the states. The only solution, and it isn't the greatest, is for Roe v Wade to be overturned and the matter taken up in the Statehouses.

Well now, everyone of you that is concerned/interested in the above ........ should be keeping your eyes closely on the following ..... because of the splattering of the feces which has just been tossed into the "States Rights" fan by said.

They are aiming at a specific issue ......... but LORDY, LORDY, ..... the far flung ramifications of said will most likely force the US Supreme Court to publically declare the COTUS "null n' void" if it chooses not to recognize it as "the Law of the Land".

To wit:

Montana Defies Federal Government on Gun Laws - 11 May 2009

Montana has exerted its state sovereignty by passing a new gun law that allows it to dodge the Federal government’s Interstate Commerce Law regulating gun control. The state contends that guns manufactured and sold in Montana, and thereby crossing no state lines, are exempt from federal requirements that require conducting background checks, and licensing dealers. The guns would be stamped, “Made in Montana.”

The bill passed by the state legislature, was signed into law by Democratic Governor Brian Schweitzer. Utah and Texas are eying the law and could pass similar ones, setting off what could spark a major legal confrontation with the federal government.

The result could be a possible overturning of a 1942 Supreme Court decision of Wickard v Filburn, a landmark case that has been invoked to impose federal law over state commerce.

http://uprisingradio.org/home/?p=7756

Utah legislators eye Montana gun law - May 4th, 2009

SALT LAKE CITY -- Utah lawmakers are considering following Montana's lead and claiming state's rights in the war over gun control.

The Montana Legislature passed and its governor signed into law a measure making guns that are made and kept within state boundaries exempt from federal regulations. That means they're exempt from things like background checks, licensing and registration.

Several Utah lawmakers want to do the same thing here. They say President Barack Obama and the Congress are anti-gun and will infringe on states' rights.

Rep. Carl Wimmer, R-Herriman, tells the Salt Lake Tribune he or another Utah lawmaker will introduce a similar measure next year.

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=6367553

If the USSC upholds the legality of Montana's Legislation ....... then their decision will open up Pandora's Box for possible similar Legislation involving States Rights from all the States negating any and/or all Federal Statutes that have been "piggy-backed" onto the Interstate Commerce Laws. etc., etc.

......

And ps: You should note that the major and even minor/local medias have been deafeningly silent on this matter and if it wasn't for Fox's Glenn Beck I would not have heard about it.

cheers

A number of states have or are considering sovernity legislation. The reason is that many are just plain tired of the federal government intrusive and unconstitutional behavior. Of course, the bimbos in the West Virginia legislature are too busy discussing calorie bills and Barbie's hourglass figure to concern themselves unimportant items like protecting the rights of the citizens of this state.

by ziggy Tue May 12, 2009 8:29 am

Aaron wrote:
ziggy wrote:
So are you disputing that slaves were not recognized as citizens according to the Supreme Court?

No, I am not not disputing that.

Aaron didn't say Scott wasn't a United States Citizen recognized by the Constitution thus he had no right to sue in federal court.

But you said the Supreme Court was wrong to even hear the case.

The Supreme Court justices said that before they decided the merits of the case. That was the first decision they made.

The Court first had to decide whether it had jurisdiction. Article III, Section 2, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution provides that "the judicial Power shall extend... to Controversies... between Citizens of different States..." The Court first held that Scott was not a "citizen of a state" within the meaning of the United States Constitution, as that term was understood at the time the Constitution was adopted, and therefore not able to bring suit in federal court. Furthermore, whether a person is a citizen of a state, for Article III purposes, was strictly a federal question. This meant that although any state could confer state citizenship on an individual for purposes of state law, no state could confer state citizenship on an individual for purposes of Article III. In other words, the federal courts did not have to look to whom a state conferred citizenship when interpreting the words "citizen of... a state" in the federal Constitution. Rather, it was the federal courts who were to determine who was a citizen of a state for Article III purposes.

Thus, whether Missouri recognized Scott as a citizen was irrelevant. Taney summed up,

"Consequently, no State, since the adoption of the Constitution, can by naturalizing an alien invest him with the rights and privileges secured to a citizen of a State under the Federal Government, although, so far as the State alone was concerned, he would undoubtedly be entitled to the rights of a citizen, and clothed with all the rights and immunities which the Constitution and laws of the State attached to that character."
This meant that

"no State can, by any act or law of its own, passed since the adoption of the Constitution, introduce a new member into the political community created by the Constitution of the United States."
The only relevant question, therefore, was whether, at the time the Constitution was ratified, Scott could have been considered a citizen of any state within the meaning of Article III. According to the Court, the drafters of the Constitution had viewed all African-Americans as

"beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect."
The Court also presented an argument describing the feared results of granting Mr. Scott's petition:

"It would give to persons of the negro race, ...the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, ...the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went."
Scott was not a citizen of Missouri, and the federal courts therefore lacked jurisdiction to hear the dispute.

source

And at that point, the case should have been thrown out as federal court had no jurisdiction since Scott was not a recognized citizen of Missouri.

So explain WHY the court would hear a case in which they themselves determined they had no jurisdiction.

You ask a good question, Aaron. I will look at your source and try to figure out what it's about later today or tonight. I've got to get my dog to the canine barber by 9:00 this morning, then load a truck and a bunch of other stuff- plus Ms. Ziggy says if it dries off later today I gotta mow that past ankle high grass.

by TerryRC Sat May 16, 2009 9:51 am

And that quick, sharp wit ...... is what makes Dan Rad and TRC truly hate Ann Coulter.

I hate her because she is a lying, shrill, rude person who will talk right over other people while "debating" them.

I also hate Michael Moore for that reason.

Don't presume to speak for me, Sammy.

by TerryRC Sat May 16, 2009 9:53 am

Explain to me where in the Constitution it says the states have no authority to implement and enforce laws prohibiting the murder of our unborn citizens.

Explain to me where the government has the right to seize a person's body for ANY use, save punishment.

by **Stephanie** Sat May 16, 2009 10:29 am

How would criminalizing abortion be akin to "seizing" a person's body? If the government were impregnating women, then you'd have a case.

The US government regularly drafted people for 200 years. Now that's seizing a person's body.

We have a POTUS and a Congress currently considering requiring "community service" as a requirement for a high school diploma. Given the current economic and labor conditions in this country for the past 50 years or so, that smacks quite a bit of the government seizing a person's body.

Hopefully I have your attention and you can tell me the best way to combat the teeny tiny little black ants that have invaded my living room and bathroom. I just killed one in my kitchen. I'll die of a heart attack if they infest my kitchen, Terry. I've tried ant traps and spray (both Raid products) and they're spreading, not abating. I can't have this, Terry. My son may love insects and I realize they serve a purpose, but not in my house, damn it.

by TerryRC Sat May 16, 2009 10:45 am

How would criminalizing abortion be akin to "seizing" a person's body? If the government were impregnating women, then you'd have a case.

You are forcing a woman to use her body to keep that of another alive.

The US government regularly drafted people for 200 years. Now that's seizing a person's body.

And the draft is now considered unconstitutional, like slavery.

Hopefully I have your attention and you can tell me the best way to combat the teeny tiny little black ants that have invaded my living room and bathroom. I just killed one in my kitchen. I'll die of a heart attack if they infest my kitchen, Terry. I've tried ant traps and spray (both Raid products) and they're spreading, not abating. I can't have this, Terry. My son may love insects and I realize they serve a purpose, but not in my house, damn it.

Pavement ants. We are fighting them, too. Regularly bleach all counter surfaces and keep food storage areas spotless, with open food boxes and bags kept in ziplocs or tupperware.

Any trace of food, particularly anything sweet, will bring them in. Popsicles and juice are the culprits in this house.

No food, no ants. Bleaching breaks up the odor trails that the scouts leave for the foragers to travel.

Traps help. Put them near the ant trails.

Good luck in your war.

BTW, ants were some the first creatures to be able to break down lignin (a very strong structural component) in trees. Ants use formic acid to do this.

If it wasn't for ants, terrestrial life would likely have been smothered out by dead trees.

by SamCogar Sat May 16, 2009 10:50 am

Well now, you keep those teeny tiny little black ants the hell down there ....... and come and get the ones that have been invading my space around my computer here.

Those little suckers are so quick I have trouble squashing them.

by TerryRC Sat May 16, 2009 10:52 am

Ant control is about the same for all of the structure invading species.

Do you snack at your computer? Can crumbs fall in the keyboard... ?

by **Stephanie** Sat May 16, 2009 11:00 am

If a woman doesn't want to have a baby, she should have intercourse.

I don't recall the draft or slavery being declared unconstitutional. I seem to recall an amendment abolished slavery and Carter reinstituted registration for the draft when I was about 14. You'll have to show me because I don't believe you.

So what do you think about the O's plans?

I keep everything air-tight because my husband and I are both kind of phobic about food safety and pests. I even keep the cat food and dog food in Rubbermaid.

I'm going to have to stop allowing my son to eat or drink anywhere other than the table. That's the deal.....he drips stuff. Sounds like your kids do too. I think the only thing they could be after in the bathroom is the toothpaste. I'm going to put the tubes in ziploc bags too.

Thanks for the bleach tip. I'll start using a bleach solution in the bathroom too instead of Lysol.

by **Stephanie** Sat May 16, 2009 11:02 am

Oh man, and are ticks worse this year? I treat the dogs with Frontline Plus but this year it isn't keep the ticks off them. I've had to resort to not letting them in the house because they're dropping ticks all over the place. And they're not just dropping them, we've been pulling them off their heads and out of their ears. This has never been a problem in years past as long as we kept them up to date on their flea and tick stuff.

by SamCogar Sat May 16, 2009 11:10 am

Steph, ants are always bad about coming inside during real rainy weather.

And I don't know about down there but we've had bout 3/4 weeks of it here. Bout the wettest April/May I see in 10 years or so.

by **Stephanie** Sat May 16, 2009 11:34 am

Sam,

A couple of weeks ago Kate called me asking if I'd pick her up from school because she wasn't feeling well. Idiot me decided to go the route I normally do down 18 Mile Creek Road. I was 15 minutes into my drive when I thought I could see water on the road. I slowed down and damn skippy there was water. There were ducks swimming on it. I just can't believe how much rain we've had. If I didn't live up on this ridge we'd be building an ark.

Last year I had a problem with wood roaches. I had never even heard of them before. It was pretty wet. This year as soon as the rain started I retreated all the areas I treated last year with this stuff that's supposed to act as a barrier. Knock on wood, I haven't seen any of those nasty bastards this year. I was absolutely freaked out because initially I thought they were whatever the other kind are called. Nope, as soon as it dried up a bit they were gone.

Anyway, that stuff seemed to work for the roaches but had zero impact on these damn ants. I bleached the counter tops and table tops. lol I'm going to go wash the floors again, but this time with bleach water.

Terry is always very helpful.

by Aaron Sat May 16, 2009 3:46 pm

TerryRC wrote:
And the draft is now considered unconstitutional, like slavery.

No it's not. Selective Service is still registering males 18 to 25 if needed for a national draft. You're mistaken.

by Sponsored content