• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

America is a failed experiment!

Just the other day Scalia and Ginsberg voted the same on an issue, along with Kennedy, with Thomas and the rest all voting opposite to them. If ever we needed proof that SCOTUS is not purely partisan, that's it right there.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Most rulings of the Canadian supreme court are unanimous or highly one-sided. Our court appears to be less ideological and seems to spend a great deal of time debating among themselves before ruling in order to develop a strong consensus. But then, our justices don't have to go through the dog and pony show yours do in order to be appointed to the bench.

That said, I see nothing wrong with a divided court, such as yours, as long as opinions are rational and have some basis in reality. The pretzel twists some of your court's rulings take are befuddling, such as the Obamacare ruling, but then it makes your court much more entertaining.
Click to expand...

Good evening, CJ.

Not to those of us who have to live with the results! Aargh! :)
 
ernst barkmann said:
what i am stating is, you as a citizen have rights.....and those rights can be violated by governments........not other citizens...citizens do not violated the constitution.....that would be criminal law.

therefore the judicial branch of our federal government hears case were governments infringed on those natural rights we have, and they serve as the arbitrator between both sides, and are suppose to use the constitution as their guide, not their personal feelings.
Click to expand...

Are natural right the only rights we have? Did all of our rights come from God? I know of two American citizen rights that are not natural and did not come from God.

Sure governments violate our rights all the time. I don't, and never would, trust the courts or Officers of the courts (lawyers) to protect my rights.

Citizens also violate the Constitution by failing to properly exercise their duty in citizenship or do you think citizenship doesn't (morally, not by any law) obligate citizens?
 
AllanHampton said:
Are natural right the only rights we have? Did all of our rights come from God? I know of two American citizen rights that are not natural and did not come from God.

Sure governments violate our rights all the time. I don't, and never would, trust the courts or Officers of the courts (lawyers) to protect my rights.

Citizens also violate the Constitution by failing to properly exercise their duty in citizenship or do you think citizenship doesn't (morally, not by any law) obligate citizens?
Click to expand...

please state other rights......

citizens cannot violate the constitution, constitutions are written for governments only, and no right can be compulsory.
 
AllanHampton said:
You mean to say citizens are not included in the Constitution and do not have a duty to it?
Click to expand...

constitutions are written for governments to limit their power, and affirm the rights of citizens.

they are not written to limit the people, rights can be exercised, but they dont have to be......nothing when it comes to rights are compulsory.......that would be illogical.
 
ernst barkmann said:
constitutions are written for governments to limit their power, and affirm the rights of citizens.

they are not written to limit the people, rights can be exercised, but they dont have to be......nothing when it comes to rights are compulsory.......that would be illogical.
Click to expand...

That's correct in my view and I've said that, more than once; didn't you read "morally (not by any law)" in my post?

Correction, I disagree that government is to confirm or secure rights. The federal government is to leave the people and their rights alone.
 
Last edited:
AllanHampton said:
That's correct in my view and I've said that, more than once; didn't you read "morally (not by any law)" in my post?

Correction, I disagree that government is to confirm or secure rights. The federal government is to leave the people and their rights alone.
Click to expand...

reading posts is not a for sure of what someone means, many get taken out of context, among other things, sometimes in your post i was having to really think about where you were coming from and i was still not for sure.

you make it sound as though i mean the government should actively looking for violations of the law, that kind of action is NOT the duty of the feds............the federal government is not supposed to be like a cop following your car, watching you, and trying to catching you speeding.

government is to leave the people alone and not interfere with their rights, unless their are accusations of infringements on rights, then government acts to settle the problem between the two parties, after that -------->it leaves the people alone again.
 
ernst barkmann said:
reading posts is not a for sure of what someone means, many get taken out of context, among other things, sometimes in your post i was having to really think about where you were coming from and i was still not for sure.

you make it sound as though i mean the government should actively looking for violations of the law, that kind of action is NOT the duty of the feds............the federal government is not supposed to be like a cop following your car, watching you, and trying to catching you speeding.

government is to leave the people alone and not interfere with their rights, unless their are accusations of infringements on rights, then government acts to settle the problem between the two parties, after that -------->it leaves the people alone again.
Click to expand...

Did you ever hear of revenuers?

You mentioned, I think, the courts as protector of rights, I disagree with that. But the courts are obligated to enforce valid contracts; Article I, Section 10, Clause 1. No State shall... pass... Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts. Citizens have a right to contract and the courts can decide validity of the contract but not the right to contract.
 
AllanHampton said:
You mentioned, I think, the courts as protector of rights,
Click to expand...

as a citizen, you have no power to challenge a government unless you have your own private army.

therefore you must take you accusations of the violations of your rights to the court, so that the matter can be settled.

the court adjudicates the law, settles dispute of infringement

protection does no always mean though the point of a firearm.
 
ernst barkmann said:
as a citizen, you have no power to challenge a government unless you have your own private army.

therefore you must take you accusations of the violations of your rights to the court, so that the matter can be settled.

the court adjudicates the law, settles dispute of infringement

protection does no always mean though the point of a firearm.
Click to expand...

That's correct about not having any power to challenge government and "asking" (litigant) a court is no power either.
 
AllanHampton said:
Are natural right the only rights we have? Did all of our rights come from God? I know of two American citizen rights that are not natural and did not come from God.

Sure governments violate our rights all the time. I don't, and never would, trust the courts or Officers of the courts (lawyers) to protect my rights.

Citizens also violate the Constitution by failing to properly exercise their duty in citizenship or do you think citizenship doesn't (morally, not by any law) obligate citizens?
Click to expand...

What are the two natural rights that don't come from God? And what other "natural" source do they come from?
 
nota bene said:
What are the two natural rights that don't come from God? And what other "natural" source do they come from?
Click to expand...

Thank you for noticing and asking. Americans have only two Rights that have a force against government and neither are natural or came from God.

The Right to choose Representatives every two years (Article I, Section 2, clause 1) and the Right to serve on a citizen jury. Choosing (electing) Representatives came from the Founders and they wrote that Right in the Constitution, Article above. Serving on a citizen jury (two juries) came from the 1215 Magna Carta and is written in the 1787 Constitution at Article III, Section 2, clause 3. These two Rights may be exercised peacefully and with impunity.

Simple proof those two Rights did not come from God is everyone doesn't have them.

Arms are natural rights, every living thing has the Right to protect itself. Constitutionally arms, the Right to keep/Militia, are not for aggression but are only for defense from physical attack and most assuredly not for an armed revolution.

All other Rights have no force against government and amount to merely asking, or begging.
 
polgara said:
Good evening, CJ.

Not to those of us who have to live with the results! Aargh! :)
Click to expand...

Good morning Lady P - hope your snow day has passed and it's nice out now.

Yours isn't the only court that makes stupid decisions. Our supreme court recently made a decision related to free speech and human rights commissions that has many people shaking their heads and people who make their livings expressing opinions wondering if they're going to be successfully sued every time they open their mouths. I haven't seen this much disrespect for the court and one of their decisions in a long time. Something must have been in the water that day.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Good morning Lady P - hope your snow day has passed and it's nice out now.

Yours isn't the only court that makes stupid decisions. Our supreme court recently made a decision related to free speech and human rights commissions that has many people shaking their heads and people who make their livings expressing opinions wondering if they're going to be successfully sued every time they open their mouths. I haven't seen this much disrespect for the court and one of their decisions in a long time. Something must have been in the water that day.
Click to expand...

Good morning, CJ.

Why the big push to restrict speech and/or silence people? And it's happening all over at the same time? Sorry, I don't believe in coincidence... :scared: :thumbdown:
 
polgara said:
Good morning, CJ.

Why the big push to restrict speech and/or silence people? And it's happening all over at the same time? Sorry, I don't believe in coincidence... :scared: :thumbdown:
Click to expand...

I don't know if they have Human Rights Commissions in the US - here, they're independent bodies created by government but accountable to no one. Anyone who claims to be "insulted" for practically any reason can file a complaint with their local HRC, at no cost to them, and the HRC will investigate often causing the person or business complained about to expend tens of thousands of dollars defending themselves. The matter that went to our Supreme Court was related to a man who railed against homosexuality and distributed pamphlets about it. The pamphlets are admittedly not very nice but he claimed to be exercising free speech. His local HRC fined him under hate speech provisions of their code - he appealled it to his local Provincial court which overturned the HRC ruling and the HRC appealled to the Supreme Court and won.

The matter would have disappeared if not for the wording of the Supreme Court's ruling - they literally said that even if the speech is truthful, if it's intent is to expose someone or some group to hatred, it is against the law.

Needless to say, it was a very controversial decision and one that doesn't sit well with most Canadians and the government is looking at what it can do legislatively to counteract the damage the court has done.
 
CanadaJohn said:
I don't know if they have Human Rights Commissions in the US - here, they're independent bodies created by government but accountable to no one. Anyone who claims to be "insulted" for practically any reason can file a complaint with their local HRC, at no cost to them, and the HRC will investigate often causing the person or business complained about to expend tens of thousands of dollars defending themselves. The matter that went to our Supreme Court was related to a man who railed against homosexuality and distributed pamphlets about it. The pamphlets are admittedly not very nice but he claimed to be exercising free speech. His local HRC fined him under hate speech provisions of their code - he appealled it to his local Provincial court which overturned the HRC ruling and the HRC appealled to the Supreme Court and won.

The matter would have disappeared if not for the wording of the Supreme Court's ruling - they literally said that even if the speech is truthful, if it's intent is to expose someone or some group to hatred, it is against the law.

Needless to say, it was a very controversial decision and one that doesn't sit well with most Canadians and the government is looking at what it can do legislatively to counteract the damage the court has done.
Click to expand...

That is commendable, but not bloody likely to happen here, because it looks like some in our government are encouraging this sort of thing to silence the dissenters.. :thumbdown:
 
CanadaJohn said:
they're independent bodies created by government but accountable to no one.
Click to expand...


Appointed Officials, hmm, sounds like a repeat of history going back to ancient Egypt and later, 1917 Russia, 1919 Germany and at least since 1913 the U.S.A. In the early 1900's Bernard Baruch was appointed to control the U.S.A. In all of those cases the Appointees were of the same ethic group but not of the ethic of the citizenry of the country.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom