Extremist removed from office.

I didn't say I agreed with his actions on this particular issue.

But I think he is reasoned, and not a loon, to question the authority of a Federal judge regarding this issue.

I don't think our Founders wanted the rule of man, rather they wanted the rule of law. The power exerted by the judiciary is fast approaching rule of man (or woman as many cases seem to hinge on how Sandra Day O'Connor is feeling on any given day -- moderate, maybe, inconsistent, most definitely!).

If the judiciary would stick to their role in determining constitutionality (which is all "constructionist" really means!) and not write law from the bench, this country would be a better place for EVERYONE.

What you mean is, if they'd make sure their decisions adhered to your beliefs, then the world would be a better place.

Rubbish.

If the judiciary would stick to their role in determining constitutionality - that's what they did.

Ian

Was responding regarding judicial activism in general, not to this specific case. If you re-read my posts, I was not taking sides on Moore's actions. I was merely pointing out that his motivations for defiance of an order by a single federal court judge on a matter he considered to be a state issue does neither an extremist nor loon make.

I have no problem with his removal from the bench for this. I have no problem with the removal of the monument -- with some reservations on that one, as I believe those that pertain to the basis of our law (e.g. thou shalt not kill) do have a place, IMO.

Evie

Hi, Evie.

As I've said before, the problem with the Ten Commandments as the basis of our laws is #1-3, not 4-10.
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

.

Hi, Evie.

But don't you think the Ten Commandments are sort of a package deal? I vaguely recall someone doing a bit based on editing them, back in the 60's or 70's. I think David Steinberg, but maybe Carlin.
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Hi, Evie.

>> where the will of small minorities is imposed on the majority by judicial fiat <<
Like many conservatives, you misunderstand the basis of our Constitution. Our system bends over backwards to avoid a "majoritarian dictatorship." The Constitutional protections are not there for the majority (who don't need protecting), but for the minority. For example, one of my favorite bumper stickers on the abortion issue says "against abortion? Don't have one." The entire thrust of the "social conservative" movement is to impose it's own views of morality on those who don't agree. Even if that's the majority view, imposing that view on the minority who disagree is WRONG, and against the Constitution.
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Maybe you should actually educate yourself on the Constitution as you clearly don't understand some of the very basics

Evie

Evie, if your message were addressed to anyone else on the forum, it would be deleted as a personal attack. Don't make the assumption that those you're discussing things with don't know more than you just because the topic is outside their field of specialization. I took Advanced Placement (college-level) history in HS (both US and World), and got a "100" in both (my HS graded on the number system), as well as a "5" (highest possible score) on the AP exam. A main feature of the US history course was the evolution of our form of government and of the interpretation of the Constitutin. I also got a an A in "Modern British History" (1066 and after) in college, and that course was primarily focused on the evolution of the unwritten British Constitution as compared and contrasted to our own, as well as the evolution of the English common Law, the basis of our own. So I dare say I probably know a LOT more about the Constitution than do you -- but as a living, breathing, evolving document, as it's been interpreted for the first 200 years of our history, not as a moribund historical document, as the narow-minded "strict constructionists" have been trying to depict it for the last two decades. In another message, you accept the role of the Supreme Cpourt in interpreting the Constitution. Please show me where in the Constitution that particular charge is spelled out. In fact, it wasn't -- it was set out by Chief Justice John marshall in the landmark decision Marbury v. Madison in 1803. So the Supreme Court's universally accepted role of Constitutional interpretation is itself contrary to a "strict construction" of the Constitution.
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Dave, I'm impressed. You still remember your specific grades in High School, that's quite a memory you've got there. That was back in the 1960's for me, and although I was an A student, I would have to check the specific numbers in my case. But I won't bother after all this time those numbers mean nothing are not worth the bother. Same for my history courses in college a little later, I had great fun with them and did well, but I find those dusty old course grade numbers to be meaningless trivia to my mind.
I have fun with my old books, many of which have historical information, probably as much as my new ones. They are much more interesting and in my mind more worthy of remembering than some dusty old school test scores of many years gone by. Ah, well, whatever rings your chimes.

You and Ed are forever coming up with things you believe show that DK doesn't know anything about whatever subject catches the attention of the instant.

You do NOT get scores such as DK did by "skimming", you get them from learning.

Evie's post was an attack on DK's knowledge of the constitution. Well, if it was about science, which changes its mind every issue of a science magazine, or psychology, my field which seems to be locked into history, I could agree with your post.

But!

We are discussing actions and writings that happended prior to DK's birth, in terms of the generation of the consitution of the USA and its amendements. Modern interpretations of the documentation and related correspondence that has come to light may influence our considerations of the feelings at the time of the writers. However, the constitution existed then and now, and your inability to compete with DK's achievements in learning of your political system then do not excuse your 100% attack on anything DK has said or done in the now.

My allegory was based upon observation. That's what allegories do - highlight observation. You and Ed accuse DK of being wrong in all cases at all times on all subjects. Sometimes you should keep your mouth shut. This is one of those times.

DK justified his knowledge of the USA constitution based upon proof of learning in the face of denigratory attack. Your response denigrates his achievements and just reiterates denigratory attack.

Ian

First of all Dave, if you think characterizing your response to me as patronizing was a personal attack, then go ahead and delete it. Then don't continue on with more condescending rhetoric.

I suppose it would now be a personal attack were I to call you a braggart? Jeez ... can you recite every grade you ever got on an exam? And what ever happened to exam performance not necessarily being a good test of knowledge?

All I'm saying is that Moore has a point that is legitimate. I do not agree with the means he went about making that point, but it doesn't undermine that.

As others have pointed out to you, we live in a representative Republic not a Democracy. In all your studies of the Constitution and related documents perhaps you missed the KEY point -- that our basic rights are given to us not by man, or government or law -- but by our Creator!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

All are created equal. All are protected equally under the law. And even a cursory read of the Constitution should leave you walking away with the knowledge that it outlines the LIMITS of government.

You want to pick and choose selected Jefferson quotes. Well, he DID express concern over the relative unaccountability to the people of the Judicial Branch. This hysterical mania the Dems are expressing is the direct result of the fact that we have 9 judges deciding the law of the land, and on split decision issues, too often on the current court that comes down to how Sandra Day O'Connor is tending. This is the peril to the balance of powers that was feared.

Since you claim such a comprehensive knowledge I'll leave it to you to dig up the exact pertinent quotations. And, BTW, it shouldn't inconvenience you or take too much of your precious time the next time you evoke the Federalist Papers to actually find me the reference when provided with an online link to same!

Evie

Well said! I'ld also like to add that, since our rights are given to us by our creator, they cannot be taken away by government. That includes judges who may think that they can decide who has what rights today.

Hi, KP.

Presumably the same rights were given to the german and Russian people by the creator, too -- but their governments very effectively took those away. Don't say "it can't happen here," because it could.
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

... under the feel good auspices of extending the general welfare reference.

The point was, however, that government and/or the Constitution does not endow us with rights, but our Constitution limits government from taking them away. That's all of them, not just the ones you think are important on any given day.

Evie

Our rights are given to us under law, and can be taken from us by invasion, revolution or under law.

The "Good Book", whichever version you believe is the correct one, including the "apocrypha" are NOT the law of the USA, they are the excuse used by KKK, anti semites, and bigots of all persuasions.

I've nothing against belief in the God of Islam, Judaism and Christianity. I've got a lot against the bullcrap espoused to explain intollerance by the followers of that God.

Ian

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --...

(emphasis mine)

From: Full text of the Declaration of Independence

Nobody is using "signature phrases" in expressing the words of our Founders! They clearly state that the rights are given to us by our creator, and that government's function is to secure those rights.

That the people who wrote that believed it, does not make what is enshrined in the USA Constitution a bunch of rights given by God.

And I have read that document before, even discussed parts of it with you.

BTW. The signature phrase had nothing to do with the message contents.

Ian

... for long enough to actually read what I write in the context of the discussion. This did relate to our Constitution. And quoting our Founders and their beliefs. It is not in dispute that they clearly believed our government's purpose was to ensure rights bestowed upon each of us by God. This may not jive with your beliefs Ian, but it's simply fact.

Evie

I disagree with much that you say, you tell me I cannot even post a decent joke. Check boots and feet.

Consider your non-sequiteur post to Charlie the other day: to stop being hysterical. He wasn't being hysterical, he was being boringly repetitive and refusing to acknowledge anything he didn't want to see, but not hysterical.

Now. Yes, the "Founding male slave holding chauvinists" who established your Consititution believed their actions were based on the will of God. So do the terrorists who've done four suicide bombings in Turkey this week. Their belief that they were inspired by God does not make it so.

Ian

... that prevents you from actually comprehending my posts in the context of the thread they are in. I believe it to be hatred, you can fiddle with the semantics to put whatever label you want on it.

So now I told you " I cannot even post a decent joke. " Please show me where I said anything remotely like that.
Post away what you want, but I think you will agree that others besides myself also expressed their take on joke deluges and I don't see how my personal preferences regarding jokes should make any difference to you. "Bundling" them in a single post or thread seems to have been well received by the ENTIRE membership.

Back to the topic at hand. This thread was about separation of church and state and our Founding Fathers. If you want to disregard any of their views with your derogatory perception of them, you should remember that it was the same slave-owning Chauvinist Jefferson and the rest of them that put the First Amendment in our Constitution! Jeez. THEY believed the rights were given by our Creator and government's role was to secure those rights. Indisputable FACT. If it makes you feel better to consider the rights inherent to your human DNA, or whatever, the point is that it is not government that gives you rights. If you actually read the Bill of Rights during your recent academic exercise re: US Constitution, you would see that it is worded in its entirety to LIMIT the Federal government.

Evie,

You called him a patronizing boor right in the subject! That can only be considered a insult and a personal attack and it's only Dave's misguided reluctance to remove attacks aimed at himself that has kept the message from being removed.

You owe him an apology.

Dan

do not see it as a violation.

.

... as many of DK's posts. I just swallow them or respond in kind as I did this time. If they pull it fine. But if DK thinks it violates the TOS then pull it, don't play the agrieved martyr and then continue the obnoxious behavior that elicited the response in the first place.

Evie

between annoying and insulting. Just because you're annoyed does not make it ok for you to move on to being insulting and name calling. If you find that you cannot maintain a level of control of yourself when you are conversing with certain users that you find annoying, you might consider not reading posts from those users.

Dan

... DK's boastful pronouncements of expertise and condescending attitude towards anyone who dares challenge his opinion are indeed insulting.

Lately he has been on a role.

You insult Dave and then blame him for it. That's rich.

Way to take responsibility.

Dan

I didn't blame DK for my words. I take responsibilty for them. If he felt they violated the TOS then he can be a big boy and pull the post, not play the agrieved martyr. But, he threw the first insult in this latest exchange. If he's going be patronizing in his posts he shouldn't be surprised at being called on it.

If I could I would just pull my own post at this point because this has devolved into a discussion with a third party (you) that doesn't even need to be. Another case of a personal interaction between two parties that you have taken it upon yourself to argue a side. Applying your own logic, there are several posts of yours that should be pulled for calling Ed several names.

You say you take responsibility, yet two sentences later you come back with the traditional he-started-it defense.

I always try to be carefull about insulting people, especially in such lively conversation as has been going around. If you could show me what post I instulted someone in, I'll be eager to apologize and grateful to you.

Thanks,

Dan