Protestantism

» Brian Tubbs - The "Bag"

In response to And, Brian posted by pink101:

Pink, I think anyone who disagrees with me is "less valid."

I'm TOTALLY kidding about that. Seriously...I am not lumping the three of you together to somehow diminish you. You're being too sensitive (like I sometimes am). It's just that the three of you agree often, and I'm simply acknowledging that - if anything to show respect to all three of you. If Migisi, you, and Paper Turtle are all making similar points, I prefer to respond to all three of you - rather than ignore one of you and respond to the other two.

» Brian Tubbs - So much to say...

....so little time. Here goes a quick comment....

Pink, I'm not challenging your right as an American or as a human being for that matter to think for yourself. What I'm saying is that a JUDGE should strive to apply the law as it is written and according to its original understanding, and that he or she should strive to overcome any personal bias or prejudice in that application.

Paper Turtle, when I was a government teacher, I got some good debates in class going about philosophy of representation - something your posts talk about. Should a legislative representative be a TRUSTEE or DELEGATE? A "trustee" is one who is entrusted by the people to vote as he or she sees fit - the representative is NOT bound to measure public opinion polls in his/her district or constituent mail or anything like that. A "delegate" is one who the people elect to represent THEM and THEIR interests. The people are delegating their vote and voice to the representative and expect him or her to vote as THEY (the people) want. Which is the "American" way? The answer really boils down to whether we see the USA as a democracy or a Republic.

» Brian Tubbs - Changing Times

Migisi, yes, times change. That's why we have a dynamic legislative process whereby new laws can be passed and old ones amended or repealed. That's why we have an amending process in our Constitution, so the Constitution can be added onto. However, JUDGES and COURTS are NOT supposed to alter the meanings of laws already on the books! That is a perversion and mutation of the 'loose construction' doctrine originally advanced by Alexander Hamilton and John Marshall. I'm all for loose construction, so long as we go back to that doctrine as enunciated by Hamilton and Marshall. Not this loosey-goosey "Living Document" nonsense paraded in law schools and in many of our courts today.

Pink and Migisi, YES, the First Amendment is fairly straightforward - and (yes) lawyers can twist it like they can any other statute. Yes, a high school student can understand the First Amendment. And that's my point! It should be interpreted according to its plain meaning.

» pink101 - Changing Times & Interpretations

In response to Changing Times posted by BrianTubbs:
.
Brian is extolling the values of tradition and--to a degree--rightfully so.
.
But, only to a degree.
.
There was a law in michigan that all automobiles had to be proceeded by a person carrying a latern some thirty feet or so ahead after dark. That law hadn't been removed from the books for some time after highway speeds of a hundred miles an hour were more than possible.
.
And, the point is that times do change and so does intent.
.
What the Founders meant and believed was colored by their times. And what we mean and believe is colored by ours. We have come to a place where we accept the ideas of Political Correctness in some of our legal interpretations of the law. How did that come to be?
.
It, obviously, is a long story; but, I think it can be explained. The best place for that would be at the History Site. I think a discussion should include the Reconstruction period in the United States and how heavily the unfolding political climate changed America. Maybe someone is interested in that? I would be.
.

-- posted by pink101

» pink101 - For Example--A Big One

In response to Changing Times & Interpretations posted by pink101:
.
For example--a big one--here is something that has changed regarding our First Amerndemetn.
.
At the time the Cosnstitution was ratified by the acceptance of the First Ten Amendment the Press--as we know it today--did not exist. What the Founders intended was that every person should have unbidled access to publish their thoughts and ideas in public. But, we have been conditioned by media moguls to think that the press is a corps of people who use the press to push their ideas at us.
.
That is a biggie for anyone who is the least bit concerned.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - The Press

In response to For Example--A Big One posted by pink101:

At the time the Cosnstitution was ratified by the acceptance of the First Ten Amendment the Press--as we know it today--did not exist.

Only in the sense that there was no radio, TV, or Internet. There were, however, newspapers. The principle of the free press was clearly understood by the Founders.

» Brian Tubbs - Outdated laws, etc.

In response to Changing Times & Interpretations posted by pink101:

Pink, the reason that these old laws remain on the books is that the legislative branch isn't doing its job. State legislatures should repeal these old laws, when they are brought to their attention. Your example has an easy legislative remedy, Pink.

I agree that times change and that events change. I want you, Migisi, and Paper Turtle to hear me clearly on that. What I'm saying is that the LEGISLATIVE BRANCH is there to respond to those changes! Not the judiciary.

» pink101 - The Press

In response to The Press posted by BrianTubbs:
.
There were newspapers?
.
Can you name one?
.
There were village squares where people could pass out broadsides and pamphlets. But, there was no press corps. None, Nada. Zilch.
.

-- posted by pink101

» pink101 - Outdated laws, etc.

In response to Outdated laws, etc. posted by BrianTubbs:
.
I want you, Migisi, and Paper Turtle to hear me clearly on that. What I'm saying is that the LEGISLATIVE BRANCH is there to respond to those changes! Not the judiciary.
.
Idle hands are the Devil's workshop. I guess that's one of the first things I ever heard about the Old Nick.
.
It may be the job of the legislature to legislate; but, when one of those laws is still on the books, the court is the one that will have to be respond.
.
And, people being people, that is why we have groups involved in court watching.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - The Press

In response to The Press posted by pink101:

http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica...