Presidential Election: 2012

[Danoff]

So, since we are determining whether a fetus/baby's rights trump that of a mother's or not based on an arbitrary line why not allow that arbitrary decision be made on a state level? We let states determine where the arbitrary line on other rights belongs, to the point of killing people.

...because it's not arbitrary. Who has rights is not arbitrary, it is prescribed by the nature of rights.

It is somewhat arbitrary that infants have rights, and if you want to pick at that, I could see the federal government saying something like "no abortions later than 3 months after birth", at which point the states could say "no abortions later than birth", but they still don't have the latitude to say "no abortions prior to birth", because the mother's rights aren't arbitrary either.

Would you argue that pre-Civil war outlawing slavery wasn't a state right?

Yes. No person at any time in human history has had the right to own slaves - regardless of the law. All slave states were in violation of the constitutional principles (at minimum).

Or now, with gay marriage. Because there is not a federal protection allowing gay marriage, should we go the Santorum route (wow, talk about irony - sorry, I'm just really immature) and prevent states from allowing gay marriage?

The opposite actually. Gay marriage (where marriage is defined as a legal contract between two parties describing a boilerplate set of legal roles and responsibilities) is protected by the constitution as freedom of contract and should not be infringeable by states (also not a state issue).

 

[Biggles]

From it's conception, the Constitution has been as close to flawless as any document in human history. There was no need for the Civil Rights Act, as the Constitution already had provisions for every individual. The problem was that, at one time, whites thought blacks were animals, not people. Therefore, since the rights only applied to people, blacks were excluded. Do you get that dumb 250 year old logic? That's just the way it was back then. Today, gay people are the black people from 100 years ago. Gay rights is just as big an issue as black rights. But like I've said many times, rights apply to individuals, not groups, so the whole argument about black/gay/minority/religious rights is totally pointless anyway.

Here we go again.

Keefe, reading your posts is like listening to the endless rantings of a religious zealot who refuses to accept any evidence that might call into question his own belief system.

In fact, for 200 years the US Constitution did a terrible job of protecting the human rights of African Americans – either as “individuals” or as “groups”.

Although some whites might have thought blacks were "animals" not "people", many US citizens, at the time, among them some of the chief architects of the Constitution understood slavery was wrong & immoral, & made private & public statements to that effect. The fact that slavery continued for another 80 years was a result of economic & political expediency, NOT “dumb 250 year old logic”

A majority of countries in Europe & South America had abolished slavery by the time of the Dred Scott decision in 1857. By this time, a large proportion of the US population was adamantly anti-slavery. But the Supreme Court still chose to side with the “dumb logic” of denying humanity to Black Americans, which Massachusetts Senator Charles Sumner described as :

that terrible decision where a most unrighteous judgment was sustained by a falsification of history. Of course, the Constitution of the United States and every principle of Liberty was falsified, but historical truth was falsified also ...

So rather than standing up for the well-understood principles of liberty & equality, the Supreme Court, acting in the name of your "close to flawless Constitution" chose to continue to repress the human rights of African Americans.

Slavery may have been abolished after the Civil War but extreme racial discrimination – intimidation, beatings & murder continued & under Jim Crow legal sanctions were adopted to effectively completely disenfranchise Blacks in the Southern States. This systematic violation of the rights of African Americans continued into the 1950’s & ‘60’s & “States Rights” were continually evoked as a “constitutional argument” against civil rights in the South. Maybe that also seems like a long time ago to you – dumb 50 year old logic.

Again, if you spent a little more time reading history in some depth & with an open mind, instead of just reading into it what supports your a priori beliefs, you might end up with a more realistic & critical view of the world.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Well I know who I'm voting for, and I'm sure of it that's if the GOP elects the man.

 

[Sach]

Here we go again.

Keefe, reading your posts is like listening to the endless rantings of a religious zealot who refuses to accept any evidence that might call into question his own belief system.

In fact, for 200 years the US Constitution did a terrible job of protecting the human rights of African Americans – either as “individuals” or as “groups”.

Although some whites might have thought blacks were "animals" not "people", many US citizens, at the time, among them some of the chief architects of the Constitution understood slavery was wrong & immoral, & made private & public statements to that effect. The fact that slavery continued for another 80 years was a result of economic & political expediency, NOT “dumb 250 year old logic”

A majority of countries in Europe & South America had abolished slavery by the time of the Dred Scott decision in 1857. By this time, a large proportion of the US population was adamantly anti-slavery. But the Supreme Court still chose to side with the “dumb logic” of denying humanity to Black Americans, which Massachusetts Senator Charles Sumner described as :

that terrible decision where a most unrighteous judgment was sustained by a falsification of history. Of course, the Constitution of the United States and every principle of Liberty was falsified, but historical truth was falsified also ...

So rather than standing up for the well-understood principles of liberty & equality, the Supreme Court, acting in the name of your "close to flawless Constitution" chose to continue to repress the human rights of African Americans.

Slavery may have been abolished after the Civil War but extreme racial discrimination – intimidation, beatings & murder continued & under Jim Crow legal sanctions were adopted to effectively completely disenfranchise Blacks in the Southern States. This systematic violation of the rights of African Americans continued into the 1950’s & ‘60’s & “States Rights” were continually evoked as a “constitutional argument” against civil rights in the South. Maybe that also seems like a long time ago to you – dumb 50 year old logic.

Again, if you spent a little more time reading history in some depth & with an open mind, instead of just reading into it what supports your a priori beliefs, you might end up with a more realistic & critical view of the world.

By far the most informed post I have ever read on this forum, no offense to Keef. 👍

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Here we go again.

Keefe, reading your posts is like listening to the endless rantings of a religious zealot who refuses to accept any evidence that might call into question his own belief system.

In fact, for 200 years the US Constitution did a terrible job of protecting the human rights of African Americans – either as “individuals” or as “groups”.

Although some whites might have thought blacks were "animals" not "people", many US citizens, at the time, among them some of the chief architects of the Constitution understood slavery was wrong & immoral, & made private & public statements to that effect. The fact that slavery continued for another 80 years was a result of economic & political expediency, NOT “dumb 250 year old logic”

A majority of countries in Europe & South America had abolished slavery by the time of the Dred Scott decision in 1857. By this time, a large proportion of the US population was adamantly anti-slavery. But the Supreme Court still chose to side with the “dumb logic” of denying humanity to Black Americans, which Massachusetts Senator Charles Sumner described as :

that terrible decision where a most unrighteous judgment was sustained by a falsification of history. Of course, the Constitution of the United States and every principle of Liberty was falsified, but historical truth was falsified also ...

So rather than standing up for the well-understood principles of liberty & equality, the Supreme Court, acting in the name of your "close to flawless Constitution" chose to continue to repress the human rights of African Americans.

Slavery may have been abolished after the Civil War but extreme racial discrimination – intimidation, beatings & murder continued & under Jim Crow legal sanctions were adopted to effectively completely disenfranchise Blacks in the Southern States. This systematic violation of the rights of African Americans continued into the 1950’s & ‘60’s & “States Rights” were continually evoked as a “constitutional argument” against civil rights in the South. Maybe that also seems like a long time ago to you – dumb 50 year old logic.

Again, if you spent a little more time reading history in some depth & with an open mind, instead of just reading into it what supports your a priori beliefs, you might end up with a more realistic & critical view of the world.

Though I agree with you, I wouldn't say that is the fault of the constitution and a quote in your post also says that. It is easily the fault and psuedo law making that the supreme court does. The supreme court at many times was just as racist and even today seem to act in the name of the Highest Court in the Land rather than in regard to the U.S. Constitution. I'm not saying the constitution is perfect, but it does outline what rights belong to who and who has the ability to make laws in regards to certain rights, now whether or not those government bodies wish to follow that is another story in and of itself and that is where the real root of all that is the United States lies.

 

[Keef]

In fact, for 200 years the US Constitution did a terrible job of protecting the human rights of African Americans – either as “individuals” or as “groups”.

No, for 200 years, the people interpreting the Constitution did a terrible job of protecting right for everybody.

I already explained to you that, at the time, it was understood that our Constitutional rights applied to all people. To this day, they apply to all people. But the common opinion 200 years ago was that blacks weren't people, and therefore the rights did not apply to them.

The Constitution said the same thing then as it does now. Any violations of the rules, then or now, is a matter of interpretation, not a flaw in the Constitution itself. This has been explained to you numerous times in the past.

 

[Biggles]

Though I agree with you, I wouldn't say that is the fault of the constitution and a quote in your post also says that.

Well I’m glad you agree with me – arriving at consensus is always a worthwhile thing. I agree with you that it isn’t the FAULT of the Constitution. With all due respect, the rest of your post barely makes any sense - you really need to take the time & trouble to explain yourself more clearly.

No, for 200 years, the people interpreting the Constitution did a terrible job of protecting right for everybody.

I already explained to you that, at the time, it was understood that our Constitutional rights applied to all people. To this day, they apply to all people. But the common opinion 200 years ago was that blacks weren't people, and therefore the rights did not apply to them.

The Constitution said the same thing then as it does now. Any violations of the rules, then or now, is a matter of interpretation, not a flaw in the Constitution itself. This has been explained to you numerous times in the past.

The US Constitution is a “working document”, not a theoretical treatise. It is ALWAYS going to be a matter of interpretation by actual, living human beings. It’s effectiveness should be measured in how well it works IN PRACTICE.

To give you an analogy: a scientist comes up with a theory. In & of itself it’s perfectly logical & rationally argued, but when the theory is subjected to empirical testing it proves to be faulty. You cannot insist that because the reasoning behind the theory is logical the theory must be “flawless”. The scientist must go back & adjust his theory to account for the difference between theory & practice.

If, to quote keefe: "for 200 years, the people interpreting the Constitution did a terrible job of protecting right (sic) for everybody", then it would be reasonable to conclude that the Constitution was not effective IN PRACTICE at doing what it was designed to do & is therefore, in practical terms, “flawed”.

More problematic: it was the US Constitution itself that was used as a justification for the extreme civil rights abuses under Jim Crow & other discriminatory laws. Finally, it’s worth asking why countries like England, with no written constitution at all, were LESS systemically discriminatory than the US with it’s “close to flawless” constitution?

What I am asking keefe, is for you, for once, to abandon your prejudices & preconceived notions & try to look objectively at the actual evidence.

 

[Dapper]

Biggles, your analogy is suitable for at least several opinions in every thread in the this sub forum.

 

[arora]

The U.S. constitution is not flawed, the people it governs are; it was assumed by it's creators that the people would hold personal and social responsibility, and morality to a higher standard.

Back to the thread topic, the elected president is required to uphold this constitution, something our current leader was not even capable of swearing to do.

 

[Danoff]

Well I’m glad you agree with me – arriving at consensus is always a worthwhile thing.

For what? Consensus is over rated and has led to some of the worst chapters in history. (Figurative) Lemmings arrive at consensus.

I agree with you that it isn’t the FAULT of the Constitution.

Why is this not the end of the conversation?

The U.S. constitution is not flawed, the people it governs are;

This.

it was assumed by it's creators that the people would hold personal and social responsibility, and morality to a higher standard.

Not this.

The reasoning in the constitution is correct even if the people who originally reasoned it may not have fully practiced it.

 

[Joey D]

The U.S. constitution is not flawed, the people it governs are; it was assumed by it's creators that the people would hold personal and social responsibility, and morality to a higher standard.

I used to think the Constitution was flawed, but then I realized what you're saying right now. The idiots reading the thing are causing all the issues and trying to pass laws by twisting the Constitutions words around to make it sound flawed.

 

[Biggles]

The reasoning in the constitution is correct even if the people who originally reasoned it may not have fully practiced it.

So, please do tell: when exactly was it “fully practiced”? Do you have a particular period in mind?

You haven’t addressed the issue at all & have made no attempt to respond to the analogy I suggested.

So, to help you out, let’s try this:

"Except as it may be interpreted by human beings, the Constitution is flawless."

Unfortunately, unless you have some other beings in mind, other than human beings, to administer the Constitution, you’re stuck with it being inherently potentially flawed in theory & demonstrably flawed in practice.

 

[Danoff]

So, please do tell: when exactly was it “fully practiced”? Do you have a particular period in mind?

It still isn't. (why are we talking about this?)

You haven’t addressed the issue at all & have made no attempt to respond to the analogy I suggested.

So, to help you out, let’s try this:

"Except as it may be interpreted by human beings, the Constitution is flawless."

Unfortunately, unless you have some other beings in mind, other than human beings, to administer the Constitution, you’re stuck with it being inherently potentially flawed in theory & demonstrably flawed in practice.

I didn't respond because your original statement wasn't directed at me. You seem to be arguing that is it not possible for the constitution to work due to human nature... care to elaborate where you see that problem?

 

[arora]

👍 Joey, I can't take any credit but I think I see what you are saying and it makes me happy.

@Danoff, I think you know where I was going with the responsibility part so I won't go on one of my wild 'founding fathers quote binge' I see what you are saying as well, clearly I do.

 

[Keef]

If Perry doesn't place in the top 3 in South Carolina, I predict that he will end his candidacy. He barely had a presence in New Hampshire, and probably wouldn't have done well anyway, because he was spending his time in SC. Really, if his campaign in going much further he needs to dominate in SC or just plain give up.

As for Santorum, this NH primary is a predictor of the support he'll be getting throughout heavily populated New England, which is not much. He'll get even less from the urban areas in California, though that state also has plenty of country folk.

Huntsman...I really don't know who supports him. The pundits don't know who supports him either. I don't think he knows who supports him, because he campaigned in NH about his glorious conservatism, but his biggest voter base were the moderates.

EDIT: Woot, Jack Hunter is standing in the camera on the Ron Paul stage.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

The U.S. constitution is not flawed, the people it governs are; it was assumed by it's creators that the people would hold personal and social responsibility, and morality to a higher standard.

Back to the thread topic, the elected president is required to uphold this constitution, something our current leader was not even capable of swearing to do.

^ Exaclty what I was saying not sure how he doesn't get that that is what we're trying to say.

Your second part is also good and correct. The same could be said for the many of them all the way back to Wilson.

 

[FoolKiller]

...because it's not arbitrary. Who has rights is not arbitrary, it is prescribed by the nature of rights.

It is somewhat arbitrary that infants have rights, and if you want to pick at that, I could see the federal government saying something like "no abortions later than 3 months after birth", at which point the states could say "no abortions later than birth", but they still don't have the latitude to say "no abortions prior to birth", because the mother's rights aren't arbitrary either.

So, you would argue that the federal government could legalize killing infants, because it is arbitrary that they have any rights?

Would you defend that in cases where newborns have been abandoned to die that those infants had no rights outside the penal code and thus while it violates murder according to the penal code it does not violate murder according to the definition of human rights? Essentially, arguing that the penal code is incorrect?

The opposite actually. Gay marriage (where marriage is defined as a legal contract between two parties describing a boilerplate set of legal roles and responsibilities) is protected by the constitution as freedom of contract and should not be infringeable by states (also not a state issue).

We see eye to eye on gay marriage and any response to this risks getting into defining gay marriage and civil unions and rights vs benefits, blah, blah, blah.

For the purpose of this thread, I will say that Ron Paul agrees that it is not a state issue. He also believes it isn't a federal issue. He believes it isn't a government issue at all. Where as Santorum would enforce the DOA on the states Ron Paul would just do away with all the federal legal benefits being handed out to married people so that no one has to rely on the government to bless their marriage.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

If Perry doesn't place in the top 3 in South Carolina, I predict that he will end his candidacy. He barely had a presence in New Hampshire, and probably wouldn't have done well anyway, because he was spending his time in SC. Really, if his campaign in going much further he needs to dominate in SC or just plain give up.

As for Santorum, this NH primary is a predictor of the support he'll be getting throughout heavily populated New England, which is not much. He'll get even less from the urban areas in California, though that state also has plenty of country folk.

Huntsman...I really don't know who supports him. The pundits don't know who supports him either. I don't think he knows who supports him, because he campaigned in NH about his glorious conservatism, but his biggest voter base were the moderates.

EDIT: Woot, Jack Hunter is standing in the camera on the Ron Paul stage.

I still find it funny how all the pundits want Paul in a Third Party role, as well as how these hardcore pundits on the Right (Fleischer) and left (Carville, Brazile, and Martin) that just don't want Paul.

So, you would argue that the federal government could legalize killing infants, because it is arbitrary that they have any rights?

Would you defend that in cases where newborns have been abandoned to die that those infants had no rights outside the penal code and thus while it violates murder according to the penal code it does not violate murder according to the definition of human rights? Essentially, arguing that the penal code is incorrect?

Killing a 4-month old child is likely the human-rights equivalent of killing a puppy dog. It's reprehensible, but it's not murder. I think it makes sense to set the law at birth so that we don't have to draw the line at medically changing/fuzzier place. Practically speaking the line is extremely convenient to draw at birth.

From a logical and reasoned standpoint, the line could be drawn after birth.

That should help answer

 

[Joey D]

I'm rather happy Jon Huntsman's pulled third in NH, from what I know about him he seems to be a pretty good candidate.

 

[ChaosStar79]

Paul places in second and drops a bomb on the other candidates telling them to gtfo.

Brilliant. Seriously, I like this move. Straight to the point as always.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Paul places in second and drops a bomb on the other candidates telling them to gtfo.

Brilliant. Seriously, I like this move. Straight to the point as always.

Strong arm tactics I can get behind, at least it shows people that he isn't a slouch.

 

[Omnis]

This is the part of the story where **** gets real.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

This is the part of the story where **** gets real.

True story

 

[Omnis]

New Hampshire-- the granite enema state. So far, Santorum has 10% less presence here than the national average.

 

[Keef]

I'm rather happy Jon Huntsman's pulled third in NH, from what I know about him he seems to be a pretty good candidate.

He does? Hell, I have enough trouble remembering the man's name because there is nothing notable about him at all.

EDIT: I take that back. One of his daughters looks suspiciously like Taylor Swift, which is a good thing.

 

[YSSMAN]

This is the part of the story where **** gets real.

With similar voting patterns by younger, independent and educated people in favor of Ron Paul... It gets very interesting. The GOP needs to decide if they want to include these voters or not. Paul is happy to point out that a lot of the people in his camp voted for Obama in '08, and those are not votes that they should be going out when it comes to the national election.

If the rumors of him having $10M in the bank for the election, and if the numbers continue in the same direction while still being pushed away by the establishment... I'm hoping he decides to run third-party. He's built up far too much of a base, with momentum, to throw it all out in the end. He can try to hand it off to his son, but waiting another four years won't cut it.

We'll see how the races in the South and West go. In my opinion, those are Paul's to lose.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

With similar voting patterns by younger, independent and educated people in favor of Ron Paul... It gets very interesting. The GOP needs to decide if they want to include these voters or not. Paul is happy to point out that a lot of the people in his camp voted for Obama in '08, and those are not votes that they should be going out when it comes to the national election.

If the rumors of him having $10M in the bank for the election, and if the numbers continue in the same direction while still being pushed away by the establishment... I'm hoping he decides to run third-party. He's built up far too much of a base, with momentum, to throw it all out in the end. He can try to hand it off to his son, but waiting another four years won't cut it.

We'll see how the races in the South and West go. In my opinion, those are Paul's to lose.

I think Paul wouldn't allow it. Meaning he wouldn't allow another four years of the same Rhetoric that we've had for several decades now, which is making it worse and worse. Paul didn't rule out running a third party, but at the same time doesn't see a reason to jump ship when he is quickly climbing the ladder to challenge Romney.

 

[ChaosStar79]

I think he will announce a third party run immediately if they actually nominate that Romney clown. If not, ... Canada?

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I think he will announce a third party run immediately if they actually nominate that Romney clown. If not, ... Canada?

I can see that happening.

 

[Omnis]

Know what I can see happening? Ron Paul wins at the convention, Goldwater style. Romney has a meltdown and runs as an independent.

Oh boy that would suck.