Re: cleaner wiring solution needed (resend)

["Robert L. Bass" <robertlbass@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Here is a good link on her:
> http://www.masskidnap.com/MarshallHistory.doc

Oops!  That's a "doc" file.  I don't open those -- nasty things can be
hidden in online Word docs.

>>> I DO see the Constitution as a "living
>>> document" too... Just in a different way.
>>> It is "alive" because it has provisions
>>> for change....
>>
>> Agreed, but changing the Constitution is the prerogative of Congress --
>> not the judiciary.
>
> ...of the PEOPLE through Congress.

No argument there.

> I wasn't referring strictly to the USSC. You are
> correct in their primary role: establishing
> constitutionality of laws.

They and the appellate courts share that responsibility.

>> ... The courts have the responsibility of interpreting and applying the
>> law.  They must further assess the constitutional validity of the laws in
>> order to protect the rights of the citizens.  If a judge finds that a
>> given law is unconstitutional he has the responsibility to decline to
>> enforce it in a specific case.  The appellate and Supreme Court have the
>> authority to examine lower court decisions and the laws themselves and to
>> strike down any which they deem to be unconstitutional.
>
> Agreed.
>
>> This system of "checks and balances" is an essential part of our form of
>> government designed to protect the rights and freedoms of the people.
>> Take away any part of the trinity of power and the inevitable result is
>> dictatorship.
>>
>
> Agreed in part. The end result would definately be non-democratic, but may
> or may not result in a dictatorship.

True.  My use of the word, "dictatorship" above was hyperbole.

>> Make no mistake about it.  The present administration would like nothing
>> better than to take away all of your freedoms in the names of "security"
>> and "morality" -- neither of which they are able to offer.
>
> Actually I like their method of trying things out
> using end-dated legislation...

That's just a ploy to get a policy in place.  Once it's on the books it's
easier to get enough congressional votes keep it going than it would have
been if it was first presented as a permanent law.

> ...and get rid of what doesn't work.

So when can we expect to see Chaney's resignation?  :^)

>> Without the system of judiciary review, there would be no Miranda rights;
>
> I don't have a problem with judiciary review by the USSC.
> Don't confuse this with lower courts legislating from the bench.

You're referring to what is commonly called "case law."  It is an integral
part of our judicial system.  Roe v Wade, Miranda and Quill v N. Dak are
some of the better known examples of "case law".  These all began as
apellate court rulings which were eventually carried to the USSC.  Without
the apellate bench making "law" there would be no means of redress for the
vast majority persons and businesses with civil or criminal grievances.
Egregious decisions by lower courts would almopst never be reviewed.

There was a thread here not too long ago where we discussed a famous Florida
case which resulted in the establishment of the right of all criminal
defendants to be represented by a lawyer.  Prior to that case, thousands of
poor but innocent defendants were railroaded into prison because they
couldn't afford a lawyer.  If there had not been an appellate bench the USSC
wouldn't have had time to even hear the case.

>> children would still be executed;
>
> ..to what are you referring here?

Until just recently numerous states still had laws on the books allowing
them to execute minors.

>> black Americans would not be able to vote
>
> Legislation by Congress, Amendment XIII, took care of this.
> Forget not that the Democratic party (the boys in gray
> uniforms) didn't like it very much.

In those days the DNC was awful.  Since then the GOP has swapped positions
with the Dems.

>> or attend "white" schools and women would still undergo back-room
>> butchered abortions by the thousands as they did only a few years ago.
>> The list of
>
> Yep. So now the murder of an unborn child is very polite and clean. It's
> feared less than a root canal; you might as well be getting LASIK done.

Some people believe that abortion is wrong.  Others believe differently.  I
happen to also believe it's wrong, almost as wrong as it would be for me to
tell you what you can or cannot do with your own body.

>> rights protected by the courts goes on forever.  It is almost as long as
>> the list of disingenuous politicians who would gladly legislate away your
>> rights for their own political gain.
>
> I was actually referring to the general decay of our rights in society.
>
> Freedom of Speech is a perfect example. I'm not racist, but let's say I
> was. Voicing my negative opinion of a minority (even though flawed) should
> be protected. Why?

Voicing negative opinions of minorities is still "protected speach".
Inciting people to commit crimes against minorities (or anyone else) is a
crime and well it should be.

> Because without that protection we move from "protectors of individuals'
> rights" to "thought police".

Agreed.  That is why it would be wrong to deprive people like Cracker and
the MM of their right to act like racist fools.  They have the right to be
as disgusting as they want.  Likewise, Jiminex has the right to mouth all
the vulgarity which froths from his stunted cerebral cortex.  No problem
there.

> In that case, my flawed diatribe  should be met by others
> exercising THEIR rights to Free Speech attempting to sway or correct me or
> even insult me for being uneducated...

No problem there either.

> This is the role of a society as a whole. ***Note that I'm
> talking about free speech as it applies to (IMO, flawed)
> prejudice, NOT discrimination...

Yup.  Where this needs to be limited is when the speaker is in a position of
authority.  For example, if a student says that he thinks all Macedonians
are idiots, he is within his rights.  However, the public school teacher has
no such right.  Likewise, morons like Olson are free to call competitots
vile names.  However, when the Vice-Chair of the ECLB makes similar,
unmerited statements he shoul be removed from office or sued for what little
he has.

> The whole 'politically correct speech' movement is also
> an affront to  Freedom of Speech. I was raised saying "black man".
> "African-American" is not only not necessary
> ("black man" isn't meant in a harmful or condescending
> way, only as a descriptor), but often it is actually relatively...

I rarely mention a person's race but when I do I try to use the terms of
expression that they prefer.  If someone wants to be called Afro-American,
it costs me nothing to do so.  If the gentleman prefers to be called
"black", what difference does that make to me.  When I was a child people
said someone was "colored" but that seems silly since everyone is colored.

As an aside, I noticed something in Brazil which is better IMO than what
happens here.  There is no "color line" in dating and marriage.  People of
every shade and nationality date and marry people of every other and no one
even gives it a second thought.  My own Brasilian family (wife's relatives)
includes people ranging from caucasian features like my wife to very dark
complexion.  No one even mentions it -- not because it's impolite but
because no one cares.

> The current debate on "racial profiling" is a joke as well.
> If I kill someone, I firmly believe the witnesses should
> be able to reference the fact that I am white and the
> police should be able to use this information to find me...

That's not what racial profiling is about.  Racial profiling involves police
specifically targeting minorities for "special attention".  Avon,
Connecticut had a famous case involving this some years ago.  Police
officers targeted cars full of blacks passing through town.  They were
"routinely stopped" for no infractions at a rate something like 10 times as
often as cars with white drivers.  I don't recall what the outcome was but
it was and is an ugly practice.

> This is all about small groups of "offended" people
> wielding way too much power (through the liberal
> politicians that cater to them)...

Until you've been stopped a few dozen times for DWB (Driving While Black)
you cannot begin to understand how patently offensive rcial profiling is.

> I STILL can't find a line in the Constitution that says
> you have the right to not be offended...

The Constitution only guarantees equality for all people.  Being regularly
targeted for traffic stops, frisking and police questioning just because you
happen to be black is not only offensive to the individual.  It is offensive
to society as a whole because it brings us all down to the level of people
like Cracker and MM.