125
Gender Race Prejudice: Are They Significant Factors in Campaign 2008 : Swingers Discussion 98413
Busy Swingers Forum - everything you always wanted to know about swingers.
SwingLifeStyle Swingers Personal Ads. | SwingLifeStyle Swingers Clubs

Busy Swingers Forum

Everything you always wanted to know about swingers.

Create A Free Account

HELP
FORUMSGeneral DiscussionsPoliticsGender Race Prejudice: Are They Significant Factors in Campaign 2008
TOPIC: Gender Race Prejudice: Are They Significant Factors in Campaign 2008
Created by: sappholovers
Original Starting post for this thread:
GoTo Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... More 
 1 to 10 of 146   End
User Details are only visible to members.
When Madison was referring to "all new laws," he was of course including the proposed Constitution, whose language he said was unavoidably "obscure" and "equivocal," as all new laws are in his view, in part because of the nature of langauge itself.

Madison's recognition of the imprecision of the language of the Constitution suggests that any attempt to locate the precise meaning of its words by going back to the original language (or to original intent) is doomed to problems.

He felt the the language of the Constitution would become less equivocal and less obscure over the course of time.....as it was subjected to more interpretation and adjudication.

Since the Civil War, Supreme Court justices and legal scholars, including Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., have articulated a vision of the Constitution as a "living" document....a document that will keep evolving, and he argued for a jurisprudence that was not fixated by a strict construction of original intent, or a form of interpretation more willing to go by the spirit of the words than their literal meaning in 1789.

The Civil War was a key turning point in the history of constitutional interpretation, as a Constitution fixed by its original intention was a Constitution that sanctioned slavery. Judges and legal scholars developed philosophies or schools of legal interpretation that were much more willing to see the Constitution as something that evolves....or they gave more sanction to what can be called an activist or loose construction of the Constitution.

There are many different philosophies of Constitutional interpretation or different schools of thought about how best to interpret it, and Supreme Court justices do not agree on which one to prefer or use and neither do scholars of constitutional law.

PerfectMatch: I'm sure you believe that you have the one, true, infallible, perfect way of interpreting the Constitution, and that all the judges and legal scholars who hold a different philosophy than you are WRONG.

You forget in your unearned arrogance that Supreme Court decisions are not rendered as the infallible truth, but as Opinions, with the stress on the subjectivity suggested by Opinion.

In your insufferable and unearned arrogance, you assume that your Opinions are the perfect truth.

What your posts continually reveal is that the "perfect truth" according to "perfect match" often does not make a perfect match with truth, history, evidence, fact.....but it does make a match with bias, prejudice, ignorance, and conceit.

Los Angeles CA
 
 
Username hidden
(4376 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
debjack "Begone, little man, you do a disservice to the fight against real racism in this country."

So, debjack, can you give us some direction or help about how to fight against real racism in this country?

How would you lead or engage in such a fight?

What are the first steps you would take to advance the quest to overcome racism?

What do you consider real racism? Where in the USA do we have the deepest problem with racism, and what do you suggest we do to fight against it?

Los Angeles CA
 
 
Username hidden
(4376 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
debjack: "There are numerous examples in your postings calling several of us racists with only your feelings to support the charge."

Please back up charges with specific examples. Quote my words. You have a proven record of making stuff up. Give facts, citations, quotes.

PerfectMatch: I'd be glad to cite all of Ghorum's quote. The quote says that the vagueness of the words constitutes the propriety of them, and it says that hereafter those words can be made precise.... Like Madison, Ghorum recognized that it would take time for certain words and phrases in the Constitution to lose their "obscure" or "equivocal" status and take on a precise or a clarity. Again what Ghorum and Madison recognize is the wrong-headedness of just trying to interpret the Constitution by going to the original intent of the original language, without taking into consideration judicial history....or the subsequent history of adjudication that would give the imprecise and indefinite words more precision and definition.

Again, your original claims about pursuing the precise meaning of the original language of the Constitution are defeated by the language of Ghorum and Madison. Of course, you try to ignore the significance of the part of Ghorum's statement that I have quoted as that defeats your initial argument that began this controversy over constitutional interpretation.

You don't know when you have been outsmarted and out-researched, and it's impossible for you to recognize this as you are a legend in your own mind.

Whenever you have been embarrassed by points that contradict what you claim, you hide from that point, and you try to pounce on one little bit where you think you have an advantage, but you don't.

All one has to do to expose you as an ignoramus about Constitutional history is to cite your claim that interpretations are final.

Los Angeles CA
 
 
Username hidden
(4376 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Dan and Jack, we forgot he's a mind reader. He can read all our thoughts, and even the thoughts of the service men in Iraq, he implied as such. He knows what dead civil war soldiers were thinking. He's even going to interview the dead. He knows the thoughts of the founding fathers or so he claims.

Sappy, get over yourself!!

Sanford NC
 
 
Username hidden
(19231 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
PerfectMatch:

One of the founders, Nathaniel Ghorum, did say that the vagueness of the words constitutes their propriety.....that it's good, in other words, to have general, more open-ended phrases. Madison said the words of the Constitution were inevitably "equivocal" or "obscure," and that such obscurity or indefiniteness or vagueness (my term) could not be avoided.

The point is Madison's language here--which you acknowledge--refutes the very points that you were once trying to make that the purpose of constitutional interpretation is to determine the precise meaning of a word according to the original intent of the founders.

The founders tried for precision, but they also accepted generality and obscurity and equivocalness in the language of the Constitution, as Madison recognizes.

Madison suggests that precision or more definitneness of language would come in the hereafter, or later on, as he understood that the meaning of the Constitution was not fixed, but open to interpretation.

And scholars of the Constitution such as Leonary Levy and a Supreme Court Justice, William Brennan, celebrate the Constitution for its "studied imprecision."

But I'm glad to see you coming around to see all the problems in your original statements about Constitutional interpretation, and I'm glad to see you learning something by studying the actual words of Madison rather than speaking about constitutional interpretation out of relative ignorance.

Los Angeles CA
 
 
Username hidden
(4376 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
debjack: "One big obstacle to continued solving of racism is the claiming of racism where there is none just to make a point or win a lawsuit"

Could you please give us one or two concrete examples of what you are alleging in this post? Be specific.

When have I claimed racism when there was none? When did Jesse Jackson do it?

For me, a much bigger issue is a blindness to racism or an avoidance of it and a failure to understand the significance and power of white privilege in America, past and present.

Los Angeles CA
 
 
Username hidden
(4376 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
PerfectMatch:

"It seems somebody is having difficulty distiguishing between the objects of the intent changing and the intent changing."

So what do you mean by this gaseous statement?

The words of the Constitution can be interpreted by strict construction and loose construction, by going more by the letter or going more by the spirit. Both options are available and legitimate. There is no single, right way to interpret the Constitution. There is debate about how best to interpret it, and Supreme Court judges disagree among themselves about how best to interpret the Constitution, and thus 9 Supreme Court judges do not reach the same conclusion on various cases.

You say there is a "right" and a "wrong" interpretation. Right is in the eye of the beholder. What is right for one judge is wrong for another judge and vice versa.

Supreme Court decisions are rendered as Opinions, suggesting that there is something subjective about the decision. It is an Opinion.

Judges can have different opinions about how to interpret the Constitution, and so too can we.

But you keep trying to say I am wrong....that my preferred way is wrong...... I preferThurgood Marshall's way to interpret the Constitution over that of Clarence Thomas or Scalia.

My key point is that you originally misunderstood how Madison and other founding fathers looked upon the language of the Constitution. You said the object of interpretation is to discover the precise meaning of the original intent of the founders. I pointed out that Madison recognized that the language of the Constitution was not precise.....and that certain phrases, such as "general welfare" and "necessary and proper," would have to wait for a history of adjudication to gain more specificity.

Los Angeles CA
 
 
Username hidden
(4376 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
fjep: Check out debjack's own words:

debjack: "I never used the words OPEN-ENDED..."

debjack: " It was written that arms meant the arms 'in common use at the time'. This open ended statement allows for modernization as time goes by. The founders saw constant improvements in the arms, 'in common use at the time.'"

Now who do you want to call a liar?

Los Angeles CA
 
 
Username hidden
(4376 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Bye sexy PG ;-)

Sanford NC
 
 
Username hidden
(19231 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Sapp

"so do you agree with debjack that the Constitution has open-ended statements so modernization can occur....."

LIAR, LIAR

Sanford NC
 
 
Username hidden
(19231 posts)
GoTo Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... More 
 1 to 10 of 146   End
TOPIC: Gender Race Prejudice: Are They Significant Factors in Campaign 2008