In Depth Analysis of the Democratice Race

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Good call on inalienable rights! The second amendment of the bill of rights CLEARLY states:

"the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

And I tell you this, If I ever go to prison, I want a gun. How dare they violate a prisoners RIGHT to have a gun? What if they needed to start a militia or shoot somebody? Rights are inalienable.

Touché.

For the record, I don't believe *either* side of the gun control issue properly interprets the 2nd amendment. My interpretation† (which doesn't count for a damn thing, since I'm not a Justice on the SCOTUS) is not inconsistent with what I have said in this thread.

†I once started a thread on this particular topic. If you are interested in reading it, I'm confident a search could locate it.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I suppose it depends on how you define false/improper conviction. By the letter of the law, he did, in fact, commit second degree murder. Do I believe he acted out of self defense? Yes. Still, I also agree that generally, one the threat is neutralized via disarming, further aggression is not warranted.

I don't see the threat as neutralized until the guy is handcuffed and in the back of a squad car. Just because you have the attacker's gun doesn't mean you're safe yet. I'd have a difficult time convicting in most circumstances where the victim kills the armed attacker.

I also don't agree with felony convictions for drug possession. (more ambivient about dealing) In CA pot possession is a misdomeanor, with a max $100 fine. It would be even more legal if the Feds (lead by either party) would back the fuck out.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

I don't see the threat as neutralized until the guy is handcuffed and in the back of a squad car. Just because you have the attacker's gun doesn't mean you're safe yet. I'd have a difficult time convicting in most circumstances where the victim kills the armed attacker.

I believe the point of law is that the attacker is no longer armed once their gun is taken away. I can understand both sides of the argument, and don't have an easy answer.

Quote

I also don't agree with felony convictions for drug possession. (more ambivient about dealing)

I'm definitely in agreement here, except I'm not ambivalent about dealing. I don't think it should be a felony, either.

I could actually come up with a pretty long list of things which I believe should not be felonies (or crimes at all), that are. I could also come up with a pretty long list of things which are legal (by lack of statute or enforcement) that should be felonious.

Part of why I don't support disenfranchising felons is because I don't believe our current laws are (even close to being) entirely consistent with what is ethically right or wrong.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

It's a nice thought - probably taken from the Declaration of Independence - "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights."

The Declaration of Independence was to declare the independence of a nation. The Constitution deals only with the government of that nation. The DOI is just as applicable under the Constitution as it was under the Articles of Confederation. When Lincoln delivered his Gettysburg Address, his count of "four score and seven years ago" went back not to just the ratification of the Constitution, but to the Declaration of Independence.

I seem to recall reading that the post Civil War SCOTUS used the concept that the nation of the United States transcended the nation-state of the United States to retroactively justify the use of force, etc. against the states that seceded.

Which is why the Bill of Rights was created. To actually list out rights given to the people.

See?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Which is why the Bill of Rights was created. To actually list out rights given to the people.

Have you read the Bill Of Right lately? Perhaps you should. Pay particular attention to Amendment 9:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Quote

See?

I do. Do you?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[lawrocket 3]

Yes. That's the Ninth Amendment. WHich stands for the concept that there are other rights left to the states, as read in conjunction with the Tenth Amendment - both intended to limit the power of the federal government and put that power to the states.

The Ninth Amendment, however, has gone down the drain since the reinterpretation of the commerce clause.

What does the Ninth say? That the Federal government's power over the people is limited.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Yes. That's the Ninth Amendment. WHich stands for the concept that there are other rights left to the states, as read in conjunction with the Tenth Amendment - both intended to limit the power of the federal government and put that power to the states.

The Ninth Amendment, however, has gone down the drain since the reinterpretation of the commerce clause.

What does the Ninth say? That the Federal government's power over the people is limited.

That certainly is a creative way to interpret it.

Maybe we should look at it a bit more closely.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Enumeration: The listing of things one by one.

Construed: interpreted a particular way

Deny: Refuse to admit the truth or existence of (something)

Disparage: regard or represent as being of little worth

That leaves us with:

The listing of certain rights, one by one, shall not be interpreted in a particular way in order to refuse the existence of, or represent as being of little worth, other rights retained by the people.

Notice that there is no mention of the states in the Amendment 9.

Of course, the Constitution originally allowed for the states to each determine the manner in which it's citizens could vote and which citizens could not, only specifying that each state must provide its citizens with a republican form of government. (Article. I. § 4, Article. IV § 4). Consequently, one might think that the Constitution didn't really provide for which citizens could vote. That would, however, be incorrect.

Amendment 14
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

This appears to prohibit the states from abridging the right to vote. However, Amendment 15 part 1. addresses the issue more clearly and directly.

1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

So Amendment 15 clearly prohibits states from denying voting rights based on previous servitude.

According to Black's Law Dictionary:

Involuntary servitude: The condition of one forced to labor – for pay or not – for another by coercion or imprisonment.

Finally, Amendment 24 part 1.

1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

This Amendment ensures that citizens need not pay any special taxes in order to vote, including charging felons a franchise tax in order to reinstate their voting rights.

It appears that voting rights of felons are, in fact, protected by the Constitution, after all.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

I don't see the threat as neutralized until the guy is handcuffed and in the back of a squad car. Just because you have the attacker's gun doesn't mean you're safe yet. I'd have a difficult time convicting in most circumstances where the victim kills the armed attacker.

I believe the point of law is that the attacker is no longer armed once their gun is taken away. I can understand both sides of the argument, and don't have an easy answer.

You can't presume he doesn't have a second weapon. Well you can, but having survived the first attack on your life, why take chances?

Same reason why waiting for the UN to fix Iraq was an insecure solution.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

You can't presume he doesn't have a second weapon. Well you can, but having survived the first attack on your life, why take chances?

Perhaps. Perhaps not. I wasn't there, and my friend claims to have been on autopilot, so it's really tough to second guess the actions. There's quite a few different possible scenarios, some pretty equally likely.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[rushmc 18]

Here is an example of your twisting my position.

Quote

Rushmc just hates those public roads, police departments, fire departments, airports, national parks, public health..., and he certainly doesn't want anyone from the EPA to notice the 32 million tons of pollution his company puts out every year.

You cant back any of this up with anything or any position I have taken.

But since you argue from an emotional point of view you cant handle some one calling you on the bs you post so you twist to try and put me on the defensive. I know my positions so it dont fly
Byt the way, looks like the plant will get the permits YAY but we are going for an air permit to stop all breathing to offset. You puff polution every time you exhale you know

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[lawrocket 3]

The 14th ans 15th Amendments prohibit the states from discrimonating on the basis of race about the power to vote.

Um - check out when these Amendments were passed.

Also - what the 14th Amendment did was to require the States to provide due process. The way it has been interpreted is by requiring the states to provide the bill of rights as a floor of rights.

Before it, the states didn't have to provide free speech. Or have to provide warranted searches. Etc. It meant the states would provide these federal protections.

As far as the 9th Amendment, there is MUCH discourse on what it means because it just has not been interpreted.

But, the issue of felon disenfranchisement is, by no means, settled. Richardson v. Ramirez held that felon voting isn't covered under the 14th Amendment, so cases are brought under the Voting Rights Act.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[pirana 0]

Quote

Quote

The old proverb of sleeping with dogs gets you fleas seems to fit pretty well with her as far as playing the "politician" part goes. She became a senator in a state she had little involvement in. She's constantly trying to alter her conceived image to mine for more votes (like powerful and ballsy one weekand crying the next week).

You have a lot of good points. Simple reasoning, but I think your post sums up the feeling of a lot of Americans. There seems to be an inherent distrust of her, and your points hit it on the head.


What I've never been able to figure out is how she made the transition so fast from First Lady to NY Senator. Not representative, but she was able to go straight to a Senatorial seat. Now, like you pointed out, she had very little to do with New York, it's constituents, or it's politics before... I've researched this and researched this, and the only real information I can find was on Wikipedia.....

Quote

The long-serving United States Senator from New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, announced his retirement in November 1998. Several prominent Democratic figures, including Representative Charles Rangel of New York, urged Clinton to run for Moynihan's open seat in the United States Senate election of 2000.[188][189] When she decided to run, Clinton and her husband purchased a home in Chappaqua, New York, north of New York City in September 1999.

I guess this Bothers me, even though I myself have little to do with NY. I expect Sam Brownback, our Senior Senator for Kansas, to go up to Capital hill and with his best judgement, represent the people and the interests of Kansas while trying to see the "big picture." I didn't vote for him to go and just do pork-barrel projects for Kansas or just try to get himself reelected, but I expect him to keep his constituents in mind, and then see the bigger picture. This is what I expect of my Senator.

With Hilary, I can't see her connection to NY, so how she went within a 2-year period, moved into a state, then almost instantly started representing it, well, this just bothers me. The whole thing just seems like a big grasp for power. Hell, if the Kansas Democrats loved her and we had an open seat, would she have bought a Mansion in Topeka?

I'll throw my .02 in. I actually got to see her in a relatively intimate setting of a couple hundred people back when Bill was in office. She came off extremely bad, IMO. Very fabricated, and yes, unable to give a straight answer because she was more concerned with maximizing her image potential than talking honestly about issues. And on the issue of my field (health care financing - the topic of the gathering), she operates from a combination of emotion, anecdotes, and what appears to be having an end result in mind with no understanding of how to get there in a financially responsible manner or what the impact will be.

In short, on a topic that is central to her platform, she doesn't know what the hell she is doing.

As an aside, I see the AG from the state she adopted as her jumping-off platform to The White House has filed complaints against health insurers over pricing. It is so full of half truths and misleading information that it is hard to believe the media has any objectivity at all on the issue.

You know how when you read mainstream journalism's coverage of skydiving it makes you want to gag? They are just as bad when it comes to covering health care and it's financing. Except that for skydiving they are just ignorant; on health care issues there is agenda-driven intentional deception.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[kallend 1,679]

Quote

Here is an example of your twisting my position.

Quote

Rushmc just hates those public roads, police departments, fire departments, airports, national parks, public health..., and he certainly doesn't want anyone from the EPA to notice the 32 million tons of pollution his company puts out every year.

You cant back any of this up with anything or any position I have taken.

Well, you have claimed many times to be against socialism.

SO you are now flip-flopping and arguing in favor of socialism?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Here is an example of your twisting my position.

Quote

Rushmc just hates those public roads, police departments, fire departments, airports, national parks, public health..., and he certainly doesn't want anyone from the EPA to notice the 32 million tons of pollution his company puts out every year.

You cant back any of this up with anything or any position I have taken.

Well, you have claimed many times to be against socialism.

SO you are now flip-flopping and arguing in favor of socialism?

aahhhhh WHAT?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[pirana 0]

Quote

Being a felon does not imply being a bad decision maker any more than having a clean record implies one makes good decisions.

Bad enough to get caught.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[Andrewwhyte 1]

In UK Bobby Sands was elected to Parliament while serving a 14 year prison sentence in 1981.

[warpedskydiver 0]

Hey in america we have quite a few convicted felons elected to public office.

The mayor of DC, quite a few congressmen, aldermen in chicago, etc.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

Hey in america we have quite a few convicted felons elected to public office.

The mayor of DC, quite a few congressmen, aldermen in chicago, etc.

So is disenfranchisement of felons a state by state issue?

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

The 14th ans 15th Amendments prohibit the states from discrimonating on the basis of race, color, or previous condition of servitude about the power to vote.

I fixed that for you.

Quote

Um - check out when these Amendments were passed.

As in over 75 years after the first ten amendments? I didn't see an expiration date on them. I see no reason to consider the 14th and 15th to be any less valid than the other amendments, excepting the 18th.

Quote

Also - what the 14th Amendment did was to require the States to provide due process. The way it has been interpreted is by requiring the states to provide the bill of rights as a floor of rights.

Before it, the states didn't have to provide free speech. Or have to provide warranted searches. Etc. It meant the states would provide these federal protections.

Are you saying the states don't have to honor the other sixteen amendments? (I don't count the eighteenth.) Or do the states have to honor the Constitution in its entirety?

Quote

As far as the 9th Amendment, there is MUCH discourse on what it means because it just has not been interpreted.

While it may not be a comprehensive interpretation, it clearly means that the people are not limited to only the rights specifically mentioned in the Constitution.

Quote

But, the issue of felon disenfranchisement is, by no means, settled. Richardson v. Ramirez held that felon voting isn't covered under the 14th Amendment, so cases are brought under the Voting Rights Act.

Since the 15th Amendment explicitly states that the right to vote cannot be denied based on "previous condition of servitude," I would think that it is more relevant.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Hey in america we have quite a few convicted felons elected to public office.

The mayor of DC, quite a few congressmen, aldermen in chicago, etc.

So is disenfranchisement of felons a state by state issue?

They may not be able to vote, but still run.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

What does Obama stand for?

I know he says he is for change. Based on what he has said, what does this mean?

W/r/t issues I prioritize:

Foreign & Defense Policy: Sen Obama stands for and has championed legislation to reduce the threat of left-over Cold War-era proliferation and for a post-Cold War approach to dealing with domestic and international nuclear security, both w/r/t states and terrorists. E.g., working w/Sen Dick Lugar (R-IN), he co-sponsored Nonproliferation legislation, which was signed into law by the President in Jan2007, & discussion from earlier thread: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3074199;search_string=obama%20nuclear%20;#3074199, in which he elucidated his strategy and actionable items to accomplish the goals of that strategy.

After the mixed reception to his August 07 Foreign Affairs article and CFR talk, he's come along way. Perhaps in some analogy to President Reagan, he's brought to his proverbial table some very smart people, e.g., former SecNav Richard Danzig, former DepAsst Sec of State Susan Rice, Joe Cirincione , former Asst Sec Def Larry Korb, former counterterrorism 'czar' Richard Clarke, Samantha Power, Bruce O. Riedel, & Dennis Ross.

National Security, American competitiveness, and S&T: Sen Obama is a strong supporter of technology being at the heart of American entrepreneurial capitalism & competitiveness in the world. (Vannevar Bush redux (?)) He supports universal broadband. In a world where computers/ICT are critical, this is important. He has suggested appointing a national “chief technology officer” to oversee & coordinate policy on from electronic health records to digital privacy acts.

Education, particularly science & engineering: Math and science education is a national education priority for him. He has programs laid out to recruit, train and reward quality teachers. He acknowledges that a key problem with education comes from how we are assessing our students and plans to fund programs to move away from standardizing testing as the only means of determining progress. He also plans to fund schools that are struggling to help them perform better and then reward improvement based on that progress, i.e., based on performance and merit. Selected US Senate Bills that he sponsored w/r/t education: S. 2227: Success in the Middle Act of 2007 (for funding of rigorous middle school education standards – everyone forgets about middle schools) and S. 1574: Teaching Residency Act (for residency training of new teachers).

Energy: he’s introduced or co-sponsored multiple bi-partisan legislation efforts to reduce US dependency on foreign oil in sustainable and technologically-enabled ways. It’s a portfolio-based approach to addressing the issue rather than focusing on a single ‘silver-bullet’ or sensationalist ‘bullet points.’

Health Care: recognizes it as an issue and working to find economically viable, ethically-sound, resposible solutions. Accomplishment: Sen Obama sponsored an Illinois State law in 2003 for the expansion of Illinois' “KidCare” and “FamilyCare” programs that provided health care to more than 20,000 children in families that did not qualify for Medicaid. More than 150,000 people ended up getting healthcare who previously didn’t have it as a result of this legislation.

In addition to the CTR legislation, Sen. Obama’s attitude of working with Republicans is also evident in his more recent proposals w/r/t healthcare: he doesn’t make health care mandatory, removing a huge (right wing) impediment to success.

This approach is historically true of his political career. John Bouman, president of the Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law, said Obama's work consistently helped make programs more consumer-friendly. He would manage to get opposing sides to sit down and work together. He also said Obama was often willing to give up credit for the legislation if that helped win Republican support – the mission, the goal, and the result being more important that who gets to claim ‘credit’ for it.

A few specific areas (but far from a complete list) that I want to know more about where he stands include human rights and use of torture by representatives of America; intelligence reform; missile defense; the DoD budget; and the NSF budget.

In terms of less-tangible or less easily quantifiable issues like character: I’ve been impressed that he is willing to get “hands on” for things he believes in and work on levels that don’t normally gain you political recognition (a trait he shared with former Peace Corps volunteer Sen Chris Dodd). After college, Sen Obama worked to improve living conditions in low-income areas, then went back to law school before working as a lawyer for civil rights cases – all the while continuing his work with communities.

I like that he speaks to the American People like we are smart and capable of understanding complex issues.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Energy: he’s introduced or co-sponsored multiple bi-partisan legislation efforts to reduce US dependency on foreign oil in sustainable and technologically-enabled ways. It’s a portfolio-based approach to addressing the issue rather than focusing on a single ‘silver-bullet’ or sensationalist ‘bullet points.’

But with a healthy dallop of ethanol, no doubt? He is an Illinois Senator.

No matter - I welcome his current success and hope it continues. If he has a lead, it will be harder for the super delegates to all go to Clinton.

Can he beat McCain? I wouldn't have thought so, but I didn't think he'd be leading either, so what the hell, let's see what happens.

Does anyone know if Illinois permits him to keep his seat if he loses?

[rushmc 18]

I just found out he wrote a bill the house has passed and the senate is right now trying to push it though without much discussion. The Bill earmarks 850 billion over 13 years in new spending aid to reduce other countries proverty. This is 850
billion over what aid is spent today

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

More on the bill

http://povertynewsblog.blogspot.com/2008/02/barack-obamas-global-tax-proposal-up.html

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SimonBones 1]

Quote

What does Obama stand for?

I know he says he is for change. Based on what he has said, what does this mean?

Seriously, has there ever been a candidate who hasn't campaigned a promise of change? When was the last time you ever heard a candidate say, "If I'm elected, I won't change a damn thing. Nope. Just gonna keep everything exactly how it is." Everybody is for change. It's become redundant and meaningless. But for some reason a whole lot of people cheer whenever a candidate says he's for change.

108 way head down world record!!!
http://www.simonbones.com
Hit me up on Facebook