TheScout

You seem a little harsh on your views of the Catholic Church. No organization is perfect. The US, the BSA, and their leaders are flawed as well. I would argue however that throughout history perhaps no organization has done more good for more people than the Catholic Church.

The people don't have a right to make rules for their society, interesting. Where do these government powers come from then? "Can you give me an example of what you consider a right that cannot be taken away?" Yes. You have missed a fundamental distinction of my argument. There is a great differcnce in what: 1. What a state is constitutionally authorized to do under our system, and 2. What rights are inalienable and endowed to us by God Example. For abortion. I think a state has a right to allow abortion in all cases. I also believe however that this violation of an individals inalienable right to life. If 100% of the people of Montana vote for the 10 Commandments it is not a horrible intrusion by the state. It seems like it is following the will of the people. I find it quite fascinating that you do not subscribe to a school of constitutional interpretation. And with all do respect, it makes your arguments in some cases seem a bit hypocritical. (I may be wrong, thats just what it seems to me). It almost seems like you subscribe to any theory which can get you to your desired ends. You preached literalism with your view of the 5th Amendment. Then your 10 Commmandment ideas certainly are not. Seems a literalist would say the only thing Congress can not do in regards to the 1st Amendment would be to establish a state religion. It seems like there you are preaching a more Living Constitution approach. Then when it comes to the 14th Amendment, you were telling me what the original intent of the Congress was in passing it. Just seems funny. So how do you decide how to interpret phrases of the constitution then if you do not subscribe to any theory of interpretation?

"Legislation isn't a right" So you are saying the people do not have a right to make rules for their society. I think we both agree rights can not be taken away. So who then takes away the right of a society to create rules to govern itself? Hypothetical question then. If any state, say Montana for instance holds a referendum on whether to allow the Ten Commandments to be posted to schools, and 100% of the people vote yes, should that not be allowed. That seems an awful horrible intrusion of the central government if that is struck down. I still wonder? What is school of constitutional interpretation do you subscribe to? It seems to subscribe to several.

Rights can conflict. We all know that. I find it interesting that while I place a higher standing on the right of the people to legislate, you place a higher standing in the whims of one individual. I do not think it is a question of either of us not believing in either of the "rights" or whatever you wish to call them. It just seems to be a question of which should properly and constitutionally should take precedence. Arguments like this reveal many different things. It reveals differing morals and views of government. Good people can strongly disagree on what seems to be mundane questions. I would say this is the reason why we have a federal system and not a one size fits all national solution. People in different parts of the country can therefore decide the same questions differently. One state can allow abortion if it is consistent with the values, traditions, and histor of its people. Another can not. It seems like you are the only one trying to impose a view upon other people. I am simply arguing for the courtesy of a local government option. I still wonder? What is school of constitutional interpretation do you subscribe to? It seems to subscribe to several. Also, it would have been much nicer if you included the whole quote from President Bush that you provided. The clip from the transcript is quite short. This was from December 2000, just after Bush won the election and met with the top Congressional leaders. "I told all four that there were going to be some times where we don't agree with each other. But that's OK. If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." -George W. Bush It doesn't seem flattering to dictatorship to me. He stated that decisons would be made easier if one man was in charge (obvious). He also stated that they will nonetheless disagree, but that is "ok."

There is an advancemment committee manual available from your local council. It has all the answers you need for advancements.

To return to a more realistic topic instead of slavery, lets use putting the 10 Commndments in courthouses for instance. You dislike the fact that in some jurisdictions people may choose through their elected representatives to put the Commandments up in courthouses. I think it is the right of the people to do so if they wish. You seem to think there is some sort of natural right that is being violated by seeing there. I do not. Personally I think a local government should be able to decide either way if it wishes. You don't. I support local self determination. Other question. In your logic, is there a right to freedom of religion? You write, "The 5th amendment states what powers the government has to hold you; it does not have the power to hold you without an indictment. The 5th is stated in terms of what powers the state has, not in what rights citizens have. While the 5th could have been written in terms of what rights citizens have, the authors decided to write it in terms of what powers the government has instead -- that's what it doesn't use the term "right" in the text, because the government doesn't have rights. That's what I keep trying to explain to you." As the First Amendment says in the part regarding religon, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" So I guess there is no right to freedom or religion? Seems to me it is just saying what the government can and can not do. I knew you never seemed like a literalist . . .

Merlyn, good thing that you think the most important thing a constitution does is limit the people's legislative powers.

Merlyn, you forget my friend that legislatures are the purest form of the people's will. Packsaddle, I will oblige. Though I do not favor the curtailment of freedoms. (I consider myself quite a liberatarian, I dislike the Patriot Act) To me it is a question of states rights. Whether a state has the right to limit the freedoms if it wishes. Not really because I think it should, but because I think that it is just one symptom of how our states our losing their powers and becoming mere administrative agents of Washington. Again, I do not endorese one half of the population enslaving the other half. I just state in a pure democracy, one must believe the people have such a right. Denying me the ability to own slaves I guess is denying me freedom, though admittedly it takes more from someone else. In many cases one persons rights infringe on another. It is just an extreme case. I write of "certain governments" because they all have different powers, delegated to them by the people. As Merlyn correctly points out, the powers of our federal government are very limited in scope (at least according to the Constitution). Article I, Section 8 gives Congress only certain powers. The power to enslave people is not one of them. Territories are mere creations of the federal government and are bound by the same limitations. So they can not do so either. That brings us to states. I am not an expert on all state constitutions. I know mine would not allow half the people to enslave the others as it copies the federal Bill of Rights almost verbatim and adds to it. I assume most other states have similar guarentees. Then countys, parishes, cities, etc all gain their powers from the state, so therefore they can not either. So guess no government in the United States has such a power or right to make slaves. It would take a constitutional amendment to enhance the powers of whatever government we are talking about in its respective constitution. I'm suprised someone has actually read all this. YIS

Packsaddle, I must write that I do not think I am an advocate of subordinating individual rights to the government. I am simply writing of the right of certain governments to do such things. Not the propriety of it.

Merlyn, I wonder what your school of constitutional interpretation is? You always seemed like a living document type. Now you seem to be quite a literalist when it suits you. Also, you have yet to answer my two questions? How do we know when majority rule applies and when it doesn't? And, do you trust the American people to make wise decisions in legislatures through their elected representatives?

Gee, I am sorry you have to teach foolish me about the constitution. Madison et al. refered to states rights many times, though not in the document itself. I think they exist. Everyone in the first 75 years of this country knew they existed. Where did they go? It is a shame you think incorporation should go farther. You should get back to reality. OldGreyEagle, you make good points about the Supreme Court.

I'm pretty sure the army which freed us from the Great Britain did not also create a federal republic. I think the Congress created the Articles of Confederation then the Convention created the Constitution through democratic means. At least we can agree that republics can hold slaves. All people do not have to have the same rights to have republican government. Also a sham that you believe in majority rule only in certain circumstances. So I ask again, how do we know when this does not apply? Is that only under circumstances you agree with? Does majority rule not apply when we talk of some peoples rights? Who decides when and where majority rule applies? It is good you know enough to tell us when majority rule applies. Your argument that states do not have rights is increasing absurd. So Madiosn, Jefferson, Calhoun, Hamilton, and all the others who spoke of states rights were "sloppy" in their language. Too bad you weren't around to correct such fools. I do see the difference between stating what the law is an agreeing with it. However I think the Supreme Court can make "bad law" just like legislatures can. I am sure you will agree that laws that states on the books are "bad law" if they are overturned by court decisions but not repealed. Same can apply to Supreme Court dictates. I think the cases "incorporating" the Bill of Rights are bad law since it is derived from a false constitutional assumption.

Our limited federal republic was created by force? I seem to recall the Constitutional Convention and several state ratifying conventions in which democratically elected representatives framed our form of government. It seems that you do not favor majority rule? Or is that only under circumstances you agree with? Does majority rule not apply when we talk of some peoples rights? Who decides when and where majority rule applies? It is good you know enough to tell us when majority rule applies. You write of the antebellum Southern states, "They had the power to institute slavery back then; they don't now." So you agree that slavery is not incompatible with a republic then. As I mentioned before in regards to states rights. Obviouisly all agree that the perogatives of any government come from the people. The state is merely a manifestation of the people. The right of the state comes into play when people try to deny the people of the state the power to enact certain measures, which is the right of the people of that state, and hence the state itself to do. Our constitution leaves particular powers to the people of the several states, and it is their right to use them. So by taking away states rights, you actually threaten the rights of the people. All the early statesman that talked of states rights? Were they all delusional? It seems many people in the early republic were quite sure states had rights. When did they go away? So if you deal with reality, where does reality start? Before Engel v. Vitale, did you believe in prayer in schools? That was reality back then? Or does reality only come into play when decisions come up that you like? Final question? Do you trust the American people to make good decisions through their elected representatives or not? It seems that you thinkt he people need a censor on their decisions. I do not.

It is a shame that you don't believe in democracy. How else did we create our "limited federal republic". It seems to me that the constitutions were drawn in a democratic fashion. Were the constitutions of the antebellum Southern states not republican though they included slavery? A republic can hold slaves. There have been many throughout history. Your comparison of Colorado gays and African slaves is moot. The gays were citizens and entitled to the protections of them. The slaves were not. I guess we can then agree that some places with state religions are fair and decent places, while some are not. I appreciate you trying to explain me the concept of rights. However, just because something is not explicitly labeled as such in the constitution does not mean it is not so. I still think I have the right not to be held without an indictment. And the right not to have cruel or unusual punishments inflicted. The 9th Amendment recognizes that there are many rights that are not expressly named in the constitution. Granted the true meaning of a law is hard to determine. We do not all agree, let alone the drafters or the ratifiers. However your extreme reliance on the Supreme Court is problematic. Are you such a doctrinaire follower of its rules that you think all its decisons are constitutionally correct? Would you have supported the rights of states to segregate schools post-Plessy? You may refer to the reality of the Supreme Court. But I prefer to deal with the reality of the aspirations of the American people. When they voice their desires through their elected representatives in the state legislatures. That is how a republic works too. In the words of the great early statesman John Randolph The power, which has the right of passing, without appeal, on the validity of your laws is your sovereign. Its not like you ever try to build great secular castles in the air either . . .

Also, just for the record. I did not say I support slavery of the hanging of Quakers. Merely the right of a people of a state through the democratic process to decide that they do.

"Earlier, you indicated that states should have the right to have slavery; so how does 51% voting to enslave the other 49% preserve the rights of those 49%?" Well thats democracy, isn't it? Each state could spell out its provisions for slavery in the state constitution, made by the people of each state, not in a one size fits all national decree. Or do you just believe in democracy when it comes with results you like? You know that in the United States such a case never came up. Instead slaves were only African slaves and their descendants, clearly not members of the politcal community. You said, in regard to places with state religions that "It doesn't mean it's egalitarian regarding other religions, either." Yet I would say both countries mentioned are pretty much egalitarian even it regards to religion. So about the 5th Amendment, are you saying I do not have the right to not be held for a crime without an indictment? Or that I do not have the right to not be "deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law," or I do not have the right to just compensation for emienent domain? What about the the 3rd. Do I have the right to not have soldiers quartered in my home? Or the 8th. Do I not have the right to be protected from cruel and unusual punishment. Following your logic some up your 1st Amendment rights are not even 'rights.' I'm sure I don't have to quote it for you. But people do not have the right to freedom of religion. It merely says Congress can not make a law establishing a religion. No being against slavery and hanging Quakers does not make one elitest. Thinking that the interpretation of the constitution does not come from the people of the each of the United States, but merely from a bunch of fickle highly educated lawyers and judges. Remember Merlyn, just because the Supreme Court says something, does not mean it is true. This is the same court that came up with Plessy vs. Ferguson and Brown vs. Board of Education.

Merlyn, you write, "Because rights can't be infringed; saying that a state has "rights" implies that the state has some power that cannot be restricted or removed. Under the constitution, states only have powers granted to it, which implies that any of them may be removed. I much prefer the power of states always being subject to the will of the people." Obviouisly all agree that the perogatives of any government come from the people. The state is merely a manifestation of the people. The right of the state comes into play when people try to deny the people of the state the power to enact certain measures, which is the right of the people of that state, and hence the state itself to do. Our constitution leaves particular powers to the people of the several states, and it is their right to use them. I mentioned that Denmark and Norway and pretty darn egalitarian becaue you said that places with state churches are not egalitarian. Well there are instances when that is not true. I errored with my mention of the 4th Amendment. I meant to say the 5th does not inculde the word 'right.' You could also add the 3rd and the 8th to that as well. Your apparent elitism regarding US politics is indeed quite unfortunate. To me the dream of America is not that we have to look to some far distant court to tell us how to interpret our own constitution. It is that each and every citizen can help interpret it through their own elected legislatures. No one has a problem with courts making legitimate court decisions. However when they stretch vague phrases like those of the 14th Amendment to radically alter the way this country it is run, that is sham and that is not the dream that the founders had of America. Whether we like it or not, the Supreme Court's interpretation has radically changed the nature of our government in the United States. The federal character, and the relationship between citizens of their governments. I think it is morally and constitutionally wrong for such decisions to be made at the whim of 9 men. Remember Merlyn, just because the Supreme Court says something, does not mean it is true. This is the same court that came up with Plessy vs. Ferguson and Brown vs. Board of Education, just to name the most famous overturned decision. So did the fickle court just change its rulings, or did the constitution change? I don't think the constitution changed. Its text stayed the same. It was a contract agreed upon by the people of each of the states. It can't legitimatley change. The Supreme Court errors. And in my judgement, it errors quite often.

Merlyn, First I have a question for you. What is your problem with the idea that states have rights? The easiest one to prove is he equal represntation in the Senate. The federal constitution clearly grants each state equal suffrage. That is a right that each state has. Just because the constitution doesn't call it a right doesn't mean it is not so. That is, with all do respect, the worst argument I have ever heard. You know, the 4th Amendment does not include the word 'right' either. Does that mean its guarentees are not rights? I would also venture to say that Denmark and Norway are pretty darn egalitarian despite having state churches. (Self Correction- Sweden no longer has a state church) Lastly, your reliance on it is a shame that every argument you make about the constitution flows from the rulings of a court. Why is it that you can hardly ever explain your views through what the peoople want as decided by their elected representatives in legislatures?

Plenty of poor people get off of crimes easy as well. You just don't here about that it the news and people don't whine about it.

Merlyn, states don't have rights? Please. What about the 10th Amendment? "The poweres not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Seems like the States have the right to exercise quite a few powers there. This would include the right to make a police force. The right to create parts. The right to creat local government. Need I go on? They also have rights stemming from the federal constitution. The right to appoint presidential electors. The right to equal representation in the Senate. The right to elect a certain number of reprentatives to the House. The congressional debate on the 14th amendment is far from clear. In 1875 Rep. James Blaine, who was also a member of the Congress that approved the amendment proposed another amendment to bar states from establishing religions stateing: "No State shall make any law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; and no money raised by taxation in any State for the support of public schools, or derived from any public fund therefor, nor any public lands devoted thereto, shall ever be under the control of any religious sect, nor shall any money so raised or lands so devoted be divided between religious sects or denominations." Clearly Mr. Blaine was one who didn't see the 14th Amendment incorporating the 1st. And besides the writers. It is obvious the states would not approve an amendment if they thought it so limited their own powers. The purpose of the amendment was to protect the rights of negros in the South. I state religion does not mean a state is dysfuntional. The Denmark, Norway, and Sweden all have established churches and are regarded as among the most tolerant nations in the world. Packsaddle, I wonder what you think was wrong about Dred Scott? I think the case gets an unfair hearing often. The decideing issue was that Scott did not have standing to sue as he was not a citizen. At the time slaves were not regarded as citizens. It would make no sense to allow states to sue in federal courts. I would have left slavery to the states. The lives of a lot of American citizens would have been saved. If a state had a majority Muslim population and wanted to start Sharia law, it would be there right. People have the right to self-determination. If a state wants through its democratic process to have Slavery or Sharia, it is their right. It is easy to believe in democracy when you believe in the results. It is a lot harder when you don't. The true measure of whether one believes in democracy is whether one believes in it when the people come up wth decisions you think are abominable. How would I limit the powers of the states? It is really not up to me. It is up to the people of each of the states. As the people protected themselves from the federal government in writing the federal constitution, they also protected themselves from that of the states in the state constitutions. For example, mine in New York copies almost verbatim the federal Bill of Rights, therefore even without the 14th Amendment's "incorporation" New York citizens are thus protected. So obviously even proponents of states rights to not belive in the unrestrained power of state governments. They just want the people of each state to determine the powers of their state and not have a one size fits all national solution. That is why are country has a federal structure. That was my rant for today.

It is the Supreme Court's doctrine, because they just made it up! They engineered a coup in the wake of the vagueness of the amendment designed to protect the rights of negros to seize the rights of states and massively expand the federal power in a way never intened by the the authors of the 14th Amendment. Incorporation is arguably one of the worst examples of judical activism. Why should a state not have the power to have a religion if it wished? As you mention, for many years several states did so. They turned out fine. Its actually a principle called self-determination, that people assembled through their government can do what they want. If people from another state, say Oregon decide to declare Catholicism as their state religion, I could not care less. It is one of their rights of self government. That is why we have a federal system.

Merlyn, If the 14th Amendment meant to incorporate the Bill of Rights, why didn't it say so? "Privleges and Immuniites" is a rather vague term. If that was the intent, it could have been much better worded. Could it not apply simply to the Privleges and Immunities Clause of the original Constitution. Recall the first case interpreting it, Slaughterhouse gave a thrashing to your incorporation doctrine.

Beavah, God bless your good intentions, but for once I must agree with Merlyn. Though a scout should be courteous, kind, and patient, he must also stick up for his beliefs. And stick up for them tooth and nail if need be. If you believe in your heart that something is right, there can be no other way.

I don't recall any successful attacks on America or American interests since September 11, 2001.

An Islamic traditon holds that there are 99 names for God, each invoking a characteristic that He has.