Skip to main content

View Diary: SCOTUS OKs Corporate Election(ish) Speech (241 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Your utter inability to comprehend (0+ / 0-)

    is astounding, Scalito.  Perhaps if you read some literature this wouldn't be so difficult.  Then again, if you were better at nuance, logic and reading between the lines you wouldn't be a wingnut.

    In any event, once again and for the last time, I am not talking about the sugar plums dancing in TJ's head but the words he used in writing about the arguments for or against something, especially those found in his exchanges with Madison as they drafted and argued the words to go into the Constitution (see TJ was off in France during the Convention).  Since they were the arguments that largely made the case for what went into the wording, they are highly relevant because they shed more light on what the parties agreed to, i.e., we have little record of what everyone thought about everything back then.

    My theory on the Ninth, originalist, is supported by the words, written and spoken, of the Founders (most notably Jefferson and Wilson under the heavy influence of Locke and his disquisition on 'natural rights').  They indeed thought it ludicrous to attempt to list all the rights of people because those rights are limitless to the point of imagination so long as they don't intrude on those of others.  The bastardization of this original thinking happened later by people who couldn't imagine... didn't get complexity and gray areas.

    As for the Bill of Rights be a limiter of the rights enjoyed by the people, you may find it interesting in the arguments between the Federalists and anti-Federalists that James Madison, arguing on the side of the former, said that a bill of rights would be "dangerous" for the very reason that it may be used as a tool of the powerful to argue that because the right is not written into the Constitution it is, therefore, non-existent.

    He saw the rise of the right wing nut jobs like the Scalias, Roberts, Rehnquists and Alitos (and their political sponsors) long before they actually came to power.

    The Third is not much use?  Really?  Useful or useless is certainly an important distinction since archaic laws can be used in order to find something, anything, in order to convict someone.  Thus, we have the amendment process in order to wipe out archaisms.

    Give me ten lines from a good man and I'll find something in there to hang him. - Cardinal Richelieu

    by lgrooney on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 12:33:27 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  You still have utterly failed to cite (0+ / 0-)

      anything, even in the writings of Messrs. Jefferson and Madison to suggest that the Constitution enacted libertarianism.  Nor can you provide any support for the proposition that it would be the courts who would keep enlarging the zone of supposed rights as they see fit.  Nor can you find support for any of these propositions in any case law.  In other words, you have no support whatsoever.

      However, since you insist on this notion, please explain the constitutionality of minimum wage laws.  If I and an employer freely agree to work for less than minimum wage, what business is it of the government?  

      You have consistently failed to explain the usefulness of the amendent process if the Constitution can be simply reinterpreted to mean whatever the Court wants it to mean.  You have failed to explain why private correspondance between people, correspondance that the ratifiers did not see and therefore could not base their decisions on is of any importance.  Federalist Papers, being published and being an argument for the Constitution can be used as evidence, because they were accessible to teh ratifiers and informed their decision whether or not to vote for the Constitution.  Private correspondance is meaningless.  

      Your last paragraph is just pure gibberish.

      My advice: either a) go to law school or b) if you have gone, seriously consider taking CLEs.

      •  Go read yourself (0+ / 0-)

        The Federalist Papers or the collected writings of TJ.  You'll find all you need and more.  You may actually learn something about American Constitutional history and you will be able to consider yourself far more literate than your Scalitos in Spiderman tights.

        I have no need to support "the proposition that it would be the courts who would keep enlarging the zone of supposed rights as they see fit" because I never said that.  The courts don't have that authority as it is an inherent authority within each individual insofar as they are not specifically limited by the Constitution.

        I don't believe that minimum wage laws are Constitutional from a literal standpoint, especially where both sides agree to it.  However, it may be right and may be Constitutional inasmuch as the power in the hands of the employer can be used as a tool to infringe on the rights of the employee for nothing more than the employer's greed.  This may or may not be true depending more than anything else on the mobility of the employee, the barriers to entry should the employee decide to compete with said employer, and costs of living.  In other words, if the employee has real options then I don't think a right can be argued as infringed.

        2/3 of a person may be a good starting point for a discussion of the amendment process v. interpretation but I feel too much time has been wasted trying to get you to wrap your wingnut brain around any of this.  In any event, I think Justice Thomas needs his lemon squeezed for tea time so you'd better hurry along.

        Gibberish?  Seems my only real failure here is to find a supercollider powerful enough to get information into your density.

        And you know what you can do with your advice... use your imagination, the same one you use to envision the rights you have.

        Give me ten lines from a good man and I'll find something in there to hang him. - Cardinal Richelieu

        by lgrooney on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 01:12:14 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Comment number what now? (0+ / 1-)
          Recommended by:
          Hidden by:

          And still utter failure to produce any support for your position.

          Whare did you get YOUR law degree?

          •  The problem with wingers (0+ / 1-)
            Recommended by:
            Hidden by:

            is that nothing can ever be offered that you will find acceptable and you will twist words, examples and logic in an effort to spin away reality to your own viewpoint.  I am not going to do the research for you, numbnuts.  I have told you where you can find it.  Now, go find it.

            Where did I get MY degree?  What are you some jr. high prick trying to inflate himself?

            Peace.  Out.

            Give me ten lines from a good man and I'll find something in there to hang him. - Cardinal Richelieu

            by lgrooney on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 04:39:41 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  No, it is incumbent upon you (0+ / 0-)

              to provide evidence for your assertions.  I understand that it is hard to do, given the fact that such evidence does not exist, but that does not relieve you of an obligation to back up your theories.

              I also take it that you do not have a law degree, so that excuses your gibberish in part.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site