"I am certainly not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." - Thomas Jefferson

exactly

Well put Joe!

Does conservatism have a quote like that?

Then the Court should once again correct itself and face medical fact, that being that like gays, another class should be recognized, that of the preborn child. wink

Well put? Exactly? You two have no clue, do you?

Joe, with all due respect, your idea of what the Constitution is is frightening. You want the Constitution to change with the times, be more in step with contemporary beliefs? Then amend it. THAT is the process its creators put forth.

The Constitution must not be hijacked by federal judges who lick their fingers, stick them into the air, and see which way the constitutional winds are blowing this day.

Last time I checked, the words of that document hadn't changed since the early 1990's. That is exactly how it should be.

I ask you guys this then: Suppose that 20 years from now, Americans believe that homosexuality is a severe disorder. I'm not talking about the wackos of the Religious Right. I'm talking about a solid consensus that homosexuality is just wrong. The pervasive feeling of society then turns against gays.

Using your logic, it would be prudent for federal courts to rule that the Constitution provides no protection for gays, since, as you state, it should change with the times.

[ January 28, 2004, 11:39 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]

There is a happy medium. At one time capital punishment was considered cruel and unusual punishment. Then the court reversed itself. If the interpretation of the Constitution were immutable, there would be no need for the court. Yes, the court can move too fast, can move too slow and can move in a completely inappropriate direction. The trick is to balance the innovation and the tradition so that not only do you serve the needs of a changing nations, but keep the integrity of the document with which we govern ourselves.

Clearly, MIB, that would not be a good thing, but as the direction of our society seems to be inexorably pulled toward recognizing and understanding the full complexity of humanity, and acting accordingly.

The changes we are talking about are not frivolous changes of the public mood. They are a direct result of the continued application of the principles of our founding fathers. Just because those men could not understand where the country would go with ideas like "every man(person) is created equal" and "freedom of expression" and likely would not approve of some of the results, does not mean that we should abandon the ideals this country was founded on.

Nope, no clue at all about what your arguments are. That's not to say you don't have a right to your opinion, though. As an expert on the constituion, are my thoughts and opinions protected? I'm not sure. Please let me know.

Funny, if your Republicans keep getting elected, that kind of climate is what we might get!

[ January 29, 2004, 11:14 AM: Message edited by: Denver Fan ]

Umm...MIB, it's not Joe's idea, but Jefferson's idea of a constitution that you're frightened by.

NO WAY! their quotes have far fewer syllables; along the lines of, "bring 'em on."

No it wasn't. The Court totally screwed up a ruling and only 4 years later corrected itself. Yet another example of activist judges run amuck. Capital punishment cannot per se be unconstitutional if the Constitution itself specifically permits it.

Isn't this the same guy who owned slaves yet didn't want the anti-slavery portion of the Declaration of Independence removed, despite South Carolina's and Georgia's insistence?

Just wondering.

The views, policies and laws foisted upon us by right-wing nuts are more frightening than anything Jefferson ever could have uttered.

And this is a justification for trashing the Constitution? Sad. Truly sad. The Left will stop at nothing when it comes to trashing that precious document.

Must've been Saddam's gay agenda or something.

No, what's truly sad is that not only is the Right willing to steal some of the rights and liberties we already have, and deny us other rights and liberties that they have, but that so many fools are willing to let them. It's a moral version (as compared to a physical incident) of rape. But some of us aren't willing to, as the saying goes, relax and enjoy it.

[ January 29, 2004, 09:26 PM: Message edited by: Joe in Philly ]

The LCR takes a lot of crap on here, but I just saw this quote in the Blade

Well it's nice to know they have a "breaking point", although my jury is still out on that spin. I suggest the LCR's threaten to proactively vote for Democrats instead of the Far Right's approach of threatening to stay home.

Finally, what we've all been pissed about for years is admitted by your fearless new LCR leader..."BLIND LOYALTY" no matter how many times YOUR party kicks you in the head. Does credibility start to creep into the LCR organization? I certainly hope so because your organization has been an embarassment to Gays everywhere.

Well, clearly Guerriero's out to change what we've all been so critical of LCR in the past, and we should support him.

I'll admit I impressed with new LCR leadership willing to do more than ignoring the huge elephant standing in the room. Kudos!

Thats pretty funny.
What are they going to do...issue more press releases?? Yeah, that'll show 'em.

So it's OK for federal judges to rape the Constitution as long as the end result is a decision that grants you a right you desire? This is scary.

It seems to me there are two (related) claims by those who continually complain about "judicial activism".

1. "They invented that right out of thin air! It's not in the constitution!". This is a very weak argument. There is nothing said in the constitution about the government issuing driver's licenses (and think about all the people killed in auto accidents). There is nothing in the constitution about having a right to go parasailing. If say, Alabama came along next week and decided to outlaw parasailing, most people there wouldn't care because they don't parasail. Constitutional literalists would say that's Alabama's prerogative. The standard the courts seem to be using lately (called by literalists "judicial activism") is that the state of Alabama has to prove, under the constiution, that it has some pressing reason to deny the right to the people. I MUCH prefer living in a country where the constitution restricts the power of government, NOT one where the government can ban something on a whim, and the people can't do anything about it because that right isn't specifically enumerated in the constitution. That's why I agree with Lawrence v. Texas. NOT because I want to use the Constitution in whatever way necessary to reaching a desirable end, but because Texas could not show why, using the Constiution, they had any right to arrest and punish two guys getting it on in the privacy of their own home.

2. "It's not popular! Look at the opinion polls!". Another poor argument. IMO, it's precisely one reason the founders wanted a strong judicial branch -- to assure basic rights for the unpopular. The danger is summed up nicely by Mills' "tyranny of the majority"... http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~wldciv/world_civ_...der_2/mill.html .

A lot of arguments would be more persuasive if people avoid such cliches as "judges run amok" and "judicial activism". I also get a kick out of people using the "liberal supreme court judges" line -- even though the majority of the current justices were appointed by Republican presidents. The fact is, this is more of a Libertarian-minded judiciary, where a lot of power has been taken out of the hands of government and transferred to the people. The way it should be.

I stand by what I said. I know you're too obstinate to comprehend it, so I'll leave it at that.

I'm proud to be obstinate in my desire to protect and defend the Constitution from people like you who would detroy it in a New York second just to be granted some personal, selfish "right."

Perhaps you should read the document, where you might actually learn that it refers to states recognizing others' licenses and similar agreements, where it recognizes traveling, of which parasailing is one form.

But for argument's sake, let's say I agree with your logic. It only follows that you, like me, must oppose abortion because unlike licensing and traveling, abortion isn't even hinted at in the Constitution. wink

To want the same rights as other people is SELFISH??? My God, you're pathetic!

[ January 31, 2004, 11:06 PM: Message edited by: Joe in Philly ]

Media analysts say most of the dems are establishing a "Stop Dean" campaign. I think we should focus on a "Stop Bush" campaign...
This says it all!

[ February 02, 2004, 12:15 PM: Message edited by: bobby78751 ]

Bobby, doesn't it though???

Another poll I saw on CNN this afternoon, shows not only Kerry beating Bush handily at the moment, but also Edwards, but by one point. These two polls are significant again, even before the Dems convention. Regime change is coming...bring it on!!!!

I hate to burst your bubble; but there is going to be a lot of movement in the polls between now and election day. It happens every 4 years. When the Democrats have their convention, their nominee will "skyrocket" in the polls, then when the Republicans have their convention it will all turn around again. The Democrats have had the stage all to themselves the past couple months, as soon as Bush actually starts campaigning things will turn around. Bush only has to point to the economy to get votes; the Democrats just don't have enough rotten news to overcome it.

Economy, hah! Where all those jobs? If he can pull some of those out of a foxhole like Saddam, he might have an argument. But seriously, don't believe the hype.

And if the 9/11 families and the Kean Commission looking into the intelligence horrors and White House incompetence keep getting shafted by W and Co., his grandstanding gesture at Ground Zero could turn into a public relations disaster. As it is, quite a few people are planning to make sure he and the fatcat GOP know how little this economic "turnaround" has turned around for them--as well as, well, his lies about the WMDs and linking 9/11 and Saddam, and every other aspect of his far too long residence in the White House.

[ February 02, 2004, 06:27 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

Many of them are right HERE, but that probably doesn't matter to you, I'm sure.