Page 11 of 11 FirstFirst ... 91011
Results 101 to 106 of 106

Thread: North Carolina May Declare Official State Religion Under New Bill

  1. #101
    Sage
    samsmart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,316
    Blog Entries
    37

    Re: North Carolina May Declare Official State Religion Under New Bill

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    which might be an interesting historical debate, but is immaterial when discussing whether or how it shall be applied.

    [quote Applying the 14th Amendment to the whole rest of the Constitution is an adequate work around to deal with a number of those flaws.
    That is incorrect for two reasons:

    1. You are just as fallible (very likely more so) than they
    2. It is illegal. It is a return from Rule of Law to Rule of Man, with all the tyrannies that accompany.[/QUOTE]

    While I am just as fallible, I am the one living in this country now - not the Founders, who are dead.

    Therefore, I should be able to determine the social contract by which I live along with the rest of my fellow countrymen - not those men from 250 years ago.

    Also, the rule of law is insufficient when the law is incapable of adequately adapting to the necessities of changing times, as different times require different legislation. Not allowing legislation to adequately adapt to the needs of men is a worse way to do away with rule of law, as it often leads to revolution by violence rather than revolution by process.
    Also, we need to legalize recreational drugs and prostitution.

  2. #102
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    01-05-18 @ 10:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,296

    Re: North Carolina May Declare Official State Religion Under New Bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    Well I understand that is your opinion and that you don't respect the concept of judicial review as its been applied by the SCOTUS
    On the contrary. I have no problem with Judicial Review. My problem is with the doctrine of Judicial Supremacy, which is much newer.

    and I know that you both understand the way things work and how that's different from how you want them to work, unlike some other folks around here.
    true enough. America: Designed By Geniuses, Now Run By Fools

    I had a professor one time tell me that I needed to come to "emotional grips" with Wickard v Filburn

    So I guess... we'll just have to disagree on the subject.

  3. #103
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    01-05-18 @ 10:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,296

    Re: North Carolina May Declare Official State Religion Under New Bill

    Quote Originally Posted by samsmart View Post
    That is incorrect for two reasons:

    1. You are just as fallible (very likely more so) than they
    2. It is illegal. It is a return from Rule of Law to Rule of Man, with all the tyrannies that accompany.

    While I am just as fallible, I am the one living in this country now - not the Founders, who are dead.

    Therefore, I should be able to determine the social contract by which I live along with the rest of my fellow countrymen - not those men from 250 years ago.
    On the contrary, the Rule of Law states that the law stands until it is changed. If you want to alter the terms of your social contract, then we live in a representative society and you are free to do so... through the Amendment process. If you wish to strip police powers from the States and transfer them to the Federal Government, that's fine. It requires an Amendment process.

    But hey, if that changes, fantastic. Please let me know what I can do so as to determine my own social contract as applies to Social Security, because I would much rather stop paying that tax and take care of my own daggum retirement. After all, Roosevelt and everyone who voted on that is dead, right?

    Also, the rule of law is insufficient when the law is incapable of adequately adapting to the necessities of changing times, as different times require different legislation
    That can be true, in many cases, and in many cases, it is not. For example, we do not say that the ability to speak to billions of people now by going viral on the internet means that the government should start censoring speech.

    Not allowing legislation to adequately adapt to the needs of men is a worse way to do away with rule of law, as it often leads to revolution by violence rather than revolution by process.
    I have no problem allowing legislation to adequately adapt to the needs of men of the day. I just want it to be done legally. If you have a problem with the Police Powers of the States, then you need to alter that legally.

  4. #104
    Sage
    samsmart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,316
    Blog Entries
    37

    Re: North Carolina May Declare Official State Religion Under New Bill

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    On the contrary, the Rule of Law states that the law stands until it is changed. If you want to alter the terms of your social contract, then we live in a representative society and you are free to do so... through the Amendment process. If you wish to strip police powers from the States and transfer them to the Federal Government, that's fine. It requires an Amendment process.

    But hey, if that changes, fantastic. Please let me know what I can do so as to determine my own social contract as applies to Social Security, because I would much rather stop paying that tax and take care of my own daggum retirement. After all, Roosevelt and everyone who voted on that is dead, right?



    That can be true, in many cases, and in many cases, it is not. For example, we do not say that the ability to speak to billions of people now by going viral on the internet means that the government should start censoring speech.



    I have no problem allowing legislation to adequately adapt to the needs of men of the day. I just want it to be done legally. If you have a problem with the Police Powers of the States, then you need to alter that legally.
    But if the ability to amend the Constitution is inadequate to allow for the amendment process to be used, then the document itself is inadequate and automatically invalidated per natural law.

    Which is especially the case considering that the Founders did not consider the role of political parties or lobbying special interests in the process of governance, as such political parties and special interests can collude to dilute the representative will of the government. Which further invalidates the Constitution, as well as the rule of law the Constitution seeks to enforce.

    Thomas Jefferson thought that a Constitution should be created every generation, which he did the math to average it to every 19 years, and would concede to round it to every 20 years. Because he knew the folly in expecting successive generations to follow the same social contract that their great-great-great-grandfather decided to write for themselves to follow.
    Also, we need to legalize recreational drugs and prostitution.

  5. #105
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    01-05-18 @ 10:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,296

    Re: North Carolina May Declare Official State Religion Under New Bill

    Quote Originally Posted by samsmart View Post
    But if the ability to amend the Constitution is inadequate to allow for the amendment process to be used, then the document itself is inadequate and automatically invalidated per natural law.
    That is incorrect. There is nothing in Natural Law ever described that states that if you find the Amendment process burdensome that therefore it is invalid. On the contrary, the United States has successfully Amended the Constitution multiple times, to include dealing with the issues that you raised (Slavery, Women voting), indicating that your premise is as incorrect as the conclusion you draw from it.

    Which is especially the case considering that the Founders did not consider the role of political parties or lobbying special interests in the process of governance, as such political parties and special interests can collude to dilute the representative will of the government.
    ....I think you may benefit from re-reading the Federalist Papers. No's. 10 and 51 may be a good starting point.

    Which further invalidates the Constitution, as well as the rule of law the Constitution seeks to enforce.
    On the contrary, warring faction each seeking their own self-interest is precisely what the Constitution was designed to capture and direct towards the best possible outcome.

    Thomas Jefferson thought that a Constitution should be created every generation, which he did the math to average it to every 19 years, and would concede to round it to every 20 years.
    Yes. That is because he figured that we would see the creeping increase of power into unaccountable portions of the government, such as the Judiciary. In other words, Jefferson (whom you cite) was worried about precisely the advance in power which you advocate. And yet, the system designed by Madison while Jefferson was in France has proven much stronger than Jefferson imagined (to our benefit).

    Because he knew the folly in expecting successive generations to follow the same social contract that their great-great-great-grandfather decided to write for themselves to follow.
    I suggest you look up Jeffersons' opinion of Judicial power.

  6. #106
    Sage
    poweRob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    35,913

    Re: North Carolina May Declare Official State Religion Under New Bill

    Quote Originally Posted by PerfectStorm View Post
    Basketball is our state religion.
    And that's only because yall suck at football.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moderate Right View Post
    The sad fact is that having a pedophile win is better than having a Democrat in office. I'm all for a solution where a Republican gets in that isn't Moore.

Page 11 of 11 FirstFirst ... 91011

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •