Posted on 05/03/2002 9:35:57 PM PDT by Caleb1411
Is this the part that has you confused and befuddled?
"The contradiction is really on the other side. How can you oppose the death penalty, but be in favor of abortion? How can you be against executing Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh, who murdered 168 innocent men, women, and little children, but be for executing, without trial, a baby who isn't even born yet and who hasn't hurt anybody?"
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
How is anyone going to believe what you're saying when you don't even know what the 1 and 2 amendments say? Your "claimed" knowledge shows me something though.
Yes! Great point!
We have always known that the scumbag leftists at the ACLU do nothing more than push the ultra-liberal agenda of the Democrat Party, but the ACLU's total indifference to the 2nd Amendmen ("shall not be infringed") is glaring.
Then why has the 14th only been used to advance Federal government domination and the causes of the left?
Because the people who wrote the Fourteenth Amendment were, for whatever reason, unwilling to actually make clear what was and was not supposed to be prohibitted thereby.
Consider the First Amendment and the issues of libel, slander, etc. The First Amendment's "Congress shall make no law..." didn't need to define any exceptions for such things, because they don't fall under Congress' jurisdiction. The only thing that might have fallen under Congress' jurisdiction which might have tweaked the First Amendment would have been interstate advertising (which would have existed even in 1789, though not nearly to the extent it does today). Even there, Congress' action would be primarily to ensure that someone who advertises a product for 10 cents actually delivers it for that price, rather than concerning itself with the advertisement per se.
The application of "First-Amendment" freedoms against the states, however, poses new wrinkles. Since states are, it would seem, not to be forbidden from enforcing laws against libel and slander, it becomes necessary to have exceptions to freedom of the press/speech/etc. Unfortunately, nothing in the Fourteenth Amendment gives any clue as to what those exceptions are or should be.
It is truly unfortunate that the authors of the Fourteenth Amendment didn't bother to specify specifically what states were and were not forbidden from doing. Perhaps they couldn't agree on it, so everyone involved figured that they'd write something vague and hope courts decided things their way later on. Unfortunately, that sort of legislative laziness nearly always causes problems down the road.
------------------------------------
They specified very broadly on purpose. As per the 9th, the 'enumeration' of specific rights is not necessary. --- "Life, liberty, and property" pretty well covers ALL areas where states "shall not make or enforce any law", without constitutional due process.
The problems down the road came from socialistic programs that disapprove of so much freedom. -- In their view, -- we must must sacrifice individual liberties for the social 'good', -- for community goals & safety.
The 'moral majority' in CA views that 'safety' to be in banning guns. Incredibly, some here at FR agree. -
So lancey, whats your clever answer to my 'fallacy', above?
Yep, I'm with the others. Is there anything behind this, or is it just a lazy, easy, cheap shot so you can feel you don't have to think about the article?
Deliver, retract, or be discounted.
Dan
I'll suggest two reasons:
1) Leftists (Europe and USA) are anti-establishmentarians. The establishment is founded on Western philosophy, thus the Leftists
reject and oppose Western philosophy. (mostly they don't realize it because they are largely over-schooled illiterates.)
2) Mass migration of Muslims into major Western societies. France in particular has a very large immigrant Muslim population.
Your number two goes to further increase the evidence on my side of the balance. Yes. Death Glorifying Islamics hidden amongst relatively peaceful Muslims. Also intentional? The preponderance of evidence seems to indicate "yes" there too.
43 posted on 5/4/02 4:14 AM Hawaii-Aleutian by Always Right
Your point is solid, and I have no "clever answer" for it. I agree with you.
Yep, I'm with the others. Is there anything behind this, or is it just a lazy, easy, cheap shot so you can feel you don't have to think about the article?
I agreed with mlo, and posted my own 'fallacy', [see 51], which proves the point. It has not been rationally rebutted. --- Can you comment?
--- "Deliver, retract, or be discounted".
With the others how? With being rude jerks? They haven't said anything except to insult me with unfounded comments, and they don't even know what it is I have to criticize. Sometimes you people amaze me, there are such nasty people on FR.
I said something about the article and I said I would explain. The proper response is to discuss the article and the comments on it. It was not to insult each other. You guys ought to be ashamed.
The 'aclu' point was made by the articles author, not me. -- You are playing dumb on my 'fallacy' because you can't rationally answer the questions.
There was a thread the other day which touched on how it is so difficult to find a "libertarian" with a sense of humor, and how most "libertarians" seem to be nothing more than bitter, embarrassed, disenfranchised Democrats. One poster said he never met a happy "libertarian".
You come off like a case in point.
Anyway, since you seem to think that you asked me questions, would you kindly rephrase them? I can't find on the thread where you asked me anything. Thanks.
Regards,
LH
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.