The mystery is revealed!
Posted on 04/05/2006 12:57:02 PM PDT by JTN
If you ever get past surmising, you can start understanding it. I could outline a twelve step program for you if you would like.
Section. 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.
The purpose of the 14th Amendment (1866), especially section 1, and especially the bolded section, was to address the issue of former slaves, who had been denied and were continuing to be denied the safe guards of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Not a single blue law was changed in any state in consequence to its passage. No one even considered it. Not one single person. To construe it as you have requires a concerted refusal of history and common sense. You are not only wrong, but so wrong that you will be spending the rest of your life arguing this in the abyss. Only a socialist judge, using French law, could twist this enough to bolster your point. Luckily for you some of these are on the bench.
Unfortunately for the case of denial of property without due process (which there is a case for in the WOD) you are the worst sort of ally, who just gives the opposition ammunition.
You casting stones on "cognitive problems" is too rich. No thanks on the dream/brain enhancers, I'll just "say NO".
"dream/brain enhancers"? -- That remark is a perfect example of your cognitive problems. I didn't mention anything about "enhancers".. You dreamed that up.
Really, -- you need help.
Section. 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.
The purpose of the 14th Amendment (1866), especially section 1, and especially the bolded section, was to address the issue of former slaves, who had been denied and were continuing to be denied the safe guards of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Good of you to admit that States were violating individual rights.
Not a single blue law was changed in any state in consequence to its passage. No one even considered it. Not one single person.
The intent of the 14th is clear. No level of government was to "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law".
To construe it as you have requires a concerted refusal of history and common sense.
Is it 'common sense' to reject the historical fact that this country was founded on protecting rights to life, liberty, or property for all?
You are not only wrong, but so wrong that you will be spending the rest of your life arguing this in the abyss.
Protecting our rights is arguing in the "abyss"? How?
Only a socialist judge, using French law, could twist this enough to bolster your point. Luckily for you some of these are on the bench.
How is it "socialist" to argue ~against~ prohibitionism, a socialistic disease? Prohibitionists like you argue ~for~ 'wars' on guns, drugs, sin, 'immorality', -- whatever.
Unfortunately for the case of denial of property without due process (which there is a case for in the WOD) you are the worst sort of ally, who just gives the opposition ammunition.
You admit I have a specific case, yet you oppose my overall cause. -- That's illogical reasoning; - as I noted, you have cognitive problems. Seek help.
With no forthcoming defense of your positions and an inability to infer logical linkage, you appear to have the proverbial fork deeply embedded at this point, so I'll assume you're done. Let's see if you have the good sense to know it.
You may want to read tacticalogic's posts, he was arguing for legalization, but made much more logical sense than you.
With no forthcoming defense of your positions
You're a post behind, -- see my defense of the 14th at 223.
and an inability to infer logical linkage,
Your illogical attack on the 14th enabled my defense. That's how "linkage" works.
you appear to have the proverbial fork deeply embedded at this point, so I'll assume you're done. Let's see if you have the good sense to know it.
I'll never be done defending the Constitution from prohibitionists..
You may want to read tacticalogic's posts, he was arguing for legalization, but made much more logical sense than you.
I did read them, and noticed that he stopped arguing with you shortly after your diatribe at #185. -- That's one way to use logic -- I prefer however to meet prohibitionists head on.
Tpaine needs to address this issue.
Tpaine also needs to read up on substantive due process, as this is what tpaine is trying to base tpaine's case on, but doesn't appear to know it.
Substantive due process is a classic form of judicial activism, a process which itself makes a legally binding document (insert "Constitution" here) worthless, as its all up to the relative morality of five jurists. But at least you could then cite a few court cases that somewhat, kinda head down that path. You will find many, many more however, that drive a stake through the heart of substantive due process. Tpaine should find this troubling, as the subjective decisions of the judiciary is all that substantive due process is based on to begin with.
I hope this helps Tpaine, as Tpaine appears completely ignorant of the creation of the 14th amendment by it primary author, Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, the stated purpose of the 14th amendment, all of the debate on it at the time of its creation, the Courts rulings on the 14th amendment over the last 140 years since, and indeed of the meaning of many commonly understood words.
SampleMan wrote:
you appear to have the proverbial fork deeply embedded at this point, so I'll assume you're done. Let's see if you have the good sense to know it.
Answer: Nope.
You are still referring to me in the third person, while posting only to me. Tpaine needs to address this issue.
Weird obsession, this third person ~thing~ you have.
Tpaine also needs to read up on substantive due process, as this is what tpaine is trying to base tpaine's case on, but doesn't appear to know it.
"-- The Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee not only that appropriate and just procedures (or "processes") be used whenever the government is punishing a person or otherwise taking away a person's life, freedom or property, but that these clauses also guarantee that a person's life, freedom and property cannot be taken without appropriate governmental justification, regardless of the procedures used to do the taking. --"
Substantive due process is a classic form of judicial activism, a process which itself makes a legally binding document (insert "Constitution" here) worthless, as its all up to the relative morality of five jurists.
Not at all, as the jurists themselves can be restrained by due process.
"-- The full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause `cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution.
This `liberty´ is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on.
It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints, . .
Justice Harlan
But at least you could then cite a few court cases that somewhat, kinda head down that path. You will find many, many more however, that drive a stake through the heart of substantive due process. Tpaine should find this troubling, as the subjective decisions of the judiciary is all that substantive due process is based on to begin with.
That's the 'subjective line' put forward by prohibitionists. --- Prohibitional 'laws' violate due process.
I hope this helps Tpaine, as Tpaine appears completely ignorant of the creation of the 14th amendment by it primary author, Rep. John Bingham of Ohio,
Simply not true.
the stated purpose of the 14th amendment, all of the debate on it at the time of its creation, the Courts rulings on the 14th amendment over the last 140 years since,
Ridiculous claim. -- I uphold the 14th, and ~dispute~ the shyster-like "incorporation" and "substantive" doctrines that attempt to undermine it's clear words.
SampleMan wrote:
you appear to have the proverbial fork deeply embedded at this point, so I'll assume you're done. Let's see if you have the good sense to know it.
Answer: Nope.
Well? -- You wrote it, try to prove that you're "sticking the fork" to me.
Your assumptions are an obvious bit of ludicrous self hype.
Well, I agree that they are obvious.
I've never been inclined to believe that being in the majority makes a person right, but when your reading of "due process" puts you in such a minuscule minority, you are going to have many burdens upon you in the discussion. One of those burdens would be proof.
If the "due process" clause of the 14th amendment applies as you believe it to, why didn't the author of the amendment push for the immediate dismissal of all such regulatory laws? Why didn't anyone? Why did it take 100 years for someone to "discover" what no one else appeared to be able to read in a well published document?
I don't like inventive readings of the Constitution. If it is not a clear and binding document, it is worthless, and subject to the whims of five jurors. Trying to torture the Constitution into saying something that has been rejected by the vast majority of this country for 220 years, so that someone can smoke a joint in peace is ludicrous. If you want legalization, then push for it on its own merits.
Be careful who you hold up as a sage.
"I believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. Nothing which it commands can be safely or properly disregarded -- nothing it condemns can be justified. No civilization is worth preserving which is not based on the doctrines or teachings of the Bible." Justice Harlan(1906)
Again, your entire belief system rests on the WOD being arbitrary with purposeless restraints. The vast majority of people, through their legislators have declared that they have a clear purpose. You can argue to convince them that they won't succeed at their purpose, but give up already on the "arbitrary" argument.
I've never been inclined to believe that being in the majority makes a person right,
Yet at #229, you argue your belief that: -- "The vast majority of people, through their legislators have declared that they have a clear purpose. --"
You can't even keep your story straight between two adjacent posts.
but when your reading of "due process" puts you in such a minuscule minority, you are going to have many burdens upon you in the discussion.One of those burdens would be proof.
The argument about whether States & local governments have to operate within Constitutional due process has been going on since the Republic was formed. -- That's a fact. - One that doesn't need 'proof', - not to rational people.
If the "due process" clause of the 14th amendment applies as you believe it to, why didn't the author of the amendment push for the immediate dismissal of all such regulatory laws? Why didn't anyone?
Because we had just fought a bloody war over the issue of 'States Rights'. -- In 1868 we we trying to reconstruct the Union under the original intent of our Law of the Land. [See Article VI]
Why did it take 100 years for someone to "discover" what no one else appeared to be able to read in a well published document?
'Jim Crow' was discovered, that's why.. The 14th was ignored, with the collusion of the Courts, Congress, & Executive.
I don't like inventive readings of the Constitution. If it is not a clear and binding document, it is worthless, and subject to the whims of five jurors. Trying to torture the Constitution into saying something that has been rejected by the vast majority [There you go again, "majority rules"] of this country for 220 years, so that someone can smoke a joint in peace is ludicrous.
The prohibitions you promote are far more serious than bans on smoking pot:
"-- This `liberty´ is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property;
the freedom of speech, press, and religion;
the right to keep and bear arms;
the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures;
and so on. It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints, . .
As the second Justice Harlan recognized...
If you want legalization, then push for it on its own merits.
The initial prohibitions making drugs 'illegal' were unconstitutional. -- That's the "merits" of the issue.
Yet at #229, you argue your belief that: -- "The vast majority of people, through their legislators have declared that they have a clear purpose. --" You can't even keep your story straight between two adjacent posts.
Context. You don't seem to grasp it. The above statements are not even remotely at odds. The first was to state that I'm not basing my Constitutional argument on the fact that I'm in the majority (this was a nicety to you). The second was countering your argument that the WOD is arbitrary. A republican democracy debating a subject and then passing a law by majority, especially a set of laws over a prolonged period for an intended purpose can't be arbitrary. It can be wrong, but not arbitrary. Louis IVX's banning pineapples from France after taking one bite was arbitrary.
I don't know quite how to say this without being insulting, but my vocabulary is quite exact, my positions quite clear, yet you have shown an amazing inability to understand them. Mind you this has nothing to do with your agreeing with them, or who is right or wrong. You simply can't follow a line of thought, even when repeated.
Again I don't know how to say this without insulting you, but your debating skills are particularly weak. I'm confident that I already know the strengths of your position far more thoroughly than you do, or for that matter, you will ever be able to present them. Although there are some very good arguments for your position, you haven't made them, and I don't feel like arguing both sides.
Your parsing games have grown very old and juvenile. You continually parse my posts out of context, to attempt to show hypocrisy where there clearly is none. Sadly, I don't think you are doing this deliberately, but just honestly aren't comprehending my points. Others don't seem to have this problem with my posts on this thread or others (many disagree, but they understand and acknowledge my argument).
If you feel you need to parse this, consider it me giving you the last word.
History is an obstacle to those who advocate judicial legislation via the 14th Amendment.
"Again, we cannot wholly neglect the long settled law and common understanding of a particular state in considering the plaintiff's rights. We are bound to be very cautious in coming to the conclusion that the 14th Amendment has upset what thus has been established and accepted for a long time."
--U.S. Supreme Court, OTIS CO. v. LUDLOW MFG CO, 201 U.S. 140 (1906)
I've never been inclined to believe that being in the majority makes a person right.
Yet here at #228 you approve of a "vast majority":
Trying to torture the Constitution into saying something that has been rejected by the vast majority of this country for 220 years, so that someone can smoke a joint in peace is ludicrous. -228-
You can't even keep your story straight between two adjacent posts.
Context. You don't seem to grasp it. The above statements are not even remotely at odds.
Sheer denial.
The first was to state that I'm not basing my Constitutional argument on the fact that I'm in the majority (this was a nicety to you).
Spare me your "niceties". Argue the point.
The second was countering your argument that the WOD is arbitrary. A republican democracy debating a subject and then passing a law by majority,
There you go, advocating that a democratic majority can pass an unconstitutional WOD "law".
especially a set of laws over a prolonged period for an intended purpose can't be arbitrary. It can be wrong, but not arbitrary. Louis IVX's banning pineapples from France after taking one bite was arbitrary.
Congress banning assault weapons from America was arbitrary. - Congress banning 'dangerous' drugs over a prolonged period for an intended purpose was arbitrary. Majority rule for 'moral' purposes is arbitrary.
I don't know quite how to say this without being insulting, but my vocabulary is quite exact, my positions quite clear, yet you have shown an amazing inability to understand them.
I don't know quite how to say this without being insulting, but I understand your positions quite clearly, -- and find them to be repugnant to our Constitution.
Mind you this has nothing to do with your agreeing with them, or who is right or wrong. You simply can't follow a line of thought, even when repeated. Again I don't know how to say this without insulting you, but your debating skills are particularly weak.
Yet you are the one failing to address the constitutional points I make in my posts. You ignore them in favor of making comments on "debating skills"
I'm confident that I already know the strengths of your position far more thoroughly than you do, or for that matter, you will ever be able to present them.
Unbelievable ego.
Although there are some very good arguments for your position, you haven't made them, and I don't feel like arguing both sides.
I just posted a link to a thread where I and others made many of those arguments, long ago. Read it.
Your parsing games have grown very old and juvenile.
You mischaracterize my comments as parsing, -- a juvenile act on your part.
You continually parse my posts out of context, to attempt to show hypocrisy where there clearly is none. Sadly, I don't think you are doing this deliberately, but just honestly aren't comprehending my points. Others don't seem to have this problem with my posts on this thread or others (many disagree, but they understand and acknowledge my argument).
Again, -- you simply can't see that the others give up on arguing with you because of your 'style'. -- I don't mind your style at all, as it gives me an opportunity to confront prohibitionism.
If you feel you need to parse this, consider it me giving you the last word.
Feel free to leave the field at any time.
But perhaps the men who left their families for years, fought, and too often died to create the United States, did so in the hopes that a mystic time capsule could be written. So that hundreds of years in the future, when it was finally deciphered, their distant posterity could be free to have sex with goats, marry their daughters, and smoke crack. But of course, that must be it! Why else would they ignore such important freedoms for themselves, their children, and even their grandchildren?
Or maybe they were such dolts that they just didn't understand the term "miscreant behavior", and therefore didn't know how to clearly state that, "No miscreant behavior shall be infringed upon." But this confuses me, as the same people who wrote these amendments also wrote reams of laws against "miscreant behavior".
The only possible explanation for this strange behavior (not that there is anything wrong with strange behavior) is that they were all smoking crack, and that's it, the final proof that Thomas Jefferson and the rest of those dudes wrote the Constitution to ensure that crack heads would be free, everything else is fluff.
How did I do? Do I get my diploma?
The mystery is revealed!
Cannabis and Cognitive Functioning, Nadia Solowi, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1998.
I was aware of this going into this thread, and yet I still thought that analytical, deductive reasoning coupled with facts would work. I guess I should feel a bit foolish.
History is an obstacle to those who advocate judicial legislation via the 14th Amendment.
S-man drinks up Moj's kool aid :
But perhaps the men who left their families for years, fought, and too often died to create the United States, did so in the hopes that a mystic time capsule could be written. So that hundreds of years in the future, when it was finally deciphered, their distant posterity could be free to have sex with goats, marry their daughters, and smoke crack. But of course, that must be it! Why else would they ignore such important freedoms for themselves, their children, and even their grandchildren?
Those who yearn to write 'law' prohibiting sex with goats, marrying their daughters, and smoking crack are free to try, -- if elected. - Granted, in "hundreds of years" far to many have succeeded.
We are long overdue for a general housecleaning of these bizarre 'legislators' and their equally weird laws.
Or maybe they were such dolts that they just didn't understand the term "miscreant behavior", and therefore didn't know how to clearly state that, "No miscreant behavior shall be infringed upon."
The first 14 Amendments pretty well outline what "shall not be infringed". The framers of those supreme laws were not dolts.
But this confuses me, as the same people who wrote these amendments also wrote reams of laws against "miscreant behavior".
Yep, men are funny that way. Power corrupts, and the power to prohibit corrupts [those who imagine they have it] absolutely.
That's why we have Constitutional restrictions on such powers. It's not confusing at all.
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.