Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
Even When They Get It Right, They Get It Wrong
Topic Started: Nov 4 2005, 06:17 PM (536 Views)
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
QuirtEvans
Nov 5 2005, 06:09 AM
Quote:
 
That is not only unconstitutional, but sickening.


It's neither.

Whether something is a public use or not can be decided by the publicly elected governing body, which isn't a court. Don't like their decision? Vote for someone else. The Supreme Court was simply deferring to the local, elected authority as to what is and is not a public use. This is the sort of deference that conservatives are usually begging for.

It's also not sickening. It's the greatest good for the greatest number. Which underlies the argument that each of you make in favor of torturing terrorists ... because we can save many more innocent lives by torturing one guilty terrorist.

I don't happen to believe that, in most cases, the greatest good for the greatest number should override individual rights. But some conservatives are incredibly hypocritical about this. Individual rights are paramount ... when we are talking about guns and property. If we're talking about less tangible rights, like free speech or due process, suddenly individual rights aren't as important as the overall good.

Sorry, but the question of individual rights versus the general good should not be decided depending on whether the rights in question involve guns or property. The Constitution does not give guns and property special protection, compared to other Constitutional rights.

And Larry, it hardly surprises me that, in a war that was about abolition of slavery versus property rights, you think the wrong side won.

"Don't like their decision? Vote for someone else. "

I think that's at the heart of the recent legislation, which correctly sees that the public is so outraged at the situation, that if their rights aren't definitively protected, they will vote the politicians out of office. There is no measuring instrument known to mankind that is more finely attuned and calibrated than a politician sensing from the general public that his phoney-baloney job is on the line.

"It's the greatest good for the greatest number."

No, it isn't always thus. In fact, that's the whole reason for a Bill of Rights, to protect us from tyranny, whether a tyranny of a government, or a tyranny of the mob.

"Which underlies the argument that each of you make in favor of torturing terrorists. "

Each of us? Examples, please; be sure to provide quotes of mine indicating that I support torture. Otherwise, be a bit more accurate in your wording.

Locally, we work really hard on conservation issues. In addition to our Township government itself, a Land Trust has been established to act as receivers of conservation easements, and outright gifts of land, that is considered environmentally sensitive and worthy of protection. The Township itself has purchased property for conservation, as well. This is clearly a "public interest." But note the difference: no one has put a gun to the head of landowners who want to grant easements or outright ownership of this land; and the Township purchases of land have been at market rate, not simply taken at greatly reduced cost through eminent domain prcedure. To have done so would not have been an appropriate use of the concept - not for preservation of triple-canopy woodlands, and certainly not for a private developer to build another Hampton Inn.

Sorry, I stand up for rights of free speech just as much as property rights. Property rights are not superior to free speech rights, but neither are they subservient to them.
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
QuirtEvans
Nov 5 2005, 12:26 PM
JB, you are more than willing to ask questions, and I replied. Are you not willing to answer questions asked of you?

As I asked earlier:

Quote:
 
But, since I've addressed your question, please address my point. Why is it that conservatives want the courts to defer to the legislature, EXCEPT on issues involve property and guns? Why are the other Constitutional rights viewed as not as worthy of protection? Is it something you find somewhere in the Constitution?


Really, it wouldn't be fair of you to be asking further questions unless you're willing to respond to those asked of you.

I answered your question here:

Quote:
 
Since when is a complete deference to local governments with regard to personal property rights regarded as protecting Constitutional rights.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Asking a question (and that sentence was phrased as a question, even if it grammatically lacked a question mark) is not the same as answering a question. Unless you happen to be a law professor, which you are not. :)

Moreover, you haven't answered the question at all. You talked about property rights, again. I take it as a given that you view property rights as important. So, for the third time, here is the question:

Quote:
 
Why is it that conservatives want the courts to defer to the legislature, EXCEPT on issues involve property and guns? Why are the other Constitutional rights viewed as not as worthy of protection? Is it something you find somewhere in the Constitution?
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Quote:
 
Why is it that conservatives want the courts to defer to the legislature, EXCEPT on issues involve property and guns? Why are the other Constitutional rights viewed as not as worthy of protection? Is it something you find somewhere in the Constitution?


We don't want the courts to defer to the legislature. We want the courts to defer to the Constitution. That has been happening less and less.





Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Quote:
 
We want the courts to defer to the Constitution.


Not on free speech. Not on due process, an inherently (and in all likelihood deliberately) amorphous and poorly-defined concept. Not on equal protection, another inherently amorphous and poorly defined concept.

Not on the concept of torture, because the Eighth Amendment says, fairly plainly, that "cruel and unusual punishments [shall not be] inflicted", and makes absolutely no distinction between citizens and non-citizens.

In fact, conservatives have been twisting themselves into knots trying to justify how some parts of the Constitution don't apply to the U.S. government's actions against non-citizens, when that concept is absolutely NOT part of the plain language of the document. Apparently plain language is only plain when it means what you want it to mean; if it indicates something else, you have to think about what the Founders meant, rather than what they said.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
QuirtEvans
Nov 5 2005, 05:29 PM
Asking a question (and that sentence was phrased as a question, even if it grammatically lacked a question mark) is not the same as answering a question. Unless you happen to be a law professor, which you are not. :)

Moreover, you haven't answered the question at all. You talked about property rights, again. I take it as a given that you view property rights as important. So, for the third time, here is the question:

Quote:
 
Why is it that conservatives want the courts to defer to the legislature, EXCEPT on issues involve property and guns? Why are the other Constitutional rights viewed as not as worthy of protection? Is it something you find somewhere in the Constitution?

I hate to do this again but what Constitutional rights do I regard as not worthy of protection? <-- ;)

Or, more specifically, for which Constitutional rights do I want to defer to the legislature?

"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Fair enough, I'll have to remember that answering a question with a question that implies, but does not state, the answer is viewed as reasonable by you.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
Quote:
 
Not on free speech. Not on due process, an inherently (and in all likelihood deliberately) amorphous and poorly-defined concept. Not on equal protection, another inherently amorphous and poorly defined concept.


Not sure what you mean by this. You may have to be more specific.

Quote:
 
Not on the concept of torture, because the Eighth Amendment says, fairly plainly, that "cruel and unusual punishments [shall not be] inflicted", and makes absolutely no distinction between citizens and non-citizens.


You and Jeffrey devolved into an argument over symantics with regard to torture. The people who drafted the Eighth Amendment would probably have a collective yawn for most of things you listed as torture there.

Quote:
 
In fact, conservatives have been twisting themselves into knots trying to justify how some parts of the Constitution don't apply to the U.S. government's actions against non-citizens, when that concept is absolutely NOT part of the plain language of the document. Apparently plain language is only plain when it means what you want it to mean; if it indicates something else, you have to think about what the Founders meant, rather than what they said.


I recall having this discussion with you before and I believe the upshot was that we both agreed that anyone held in the custody of the US Government is entitled to due process. As you know, due process can take on many procedural forms depending on the situation and we may not still see eye to eye on that.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community.
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2