Yet another reason why the USA sucks

Archive of the Sojourn3 General Discussion Forum.
Abue
Sojourner
Posts: 123
Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2001 5:01 am

Yet another reason why the USA sucks

Postby Abue » Fri Jan 17, 2003 12:52 pm

This post is an editorial of the artical I read on this link.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030116/ap_on_re_us/sniper_families_sue_2

I am getting sick and tired of living in such a sue happy Nation. I fail to see why the gun manufacturer is guilty gross negligence in this. All they did was make a sale to a legitemate gun dealer. If the gun dealer was so bad the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should have shut it down. It is a constitutional right to buy, own, and use firearms in this country. The way I see it, this group of lawyers that call them selves the Brady Center are just sharks trying to make a load of cash off of others misfortune They do this by filing suit to parties that had nothing to do with the actions they claim they are sueing for. It is groups like this and peoples abilities to file suit for just about anything even with out merit that makes for yet another reason this country sucks to live in.
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Fri Jan 17, 2003 1:04 pm

Heh.. silly title for this thread.

------------------
Goddamned slippery mage.
Xisiqomelir
Sojourner
Posts: 870
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Ixarkon
Contact:

Postby Xisiqomelir » Fri Jan 17, 2003 1:47 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by daztwo:
<B>
Final note: You forget that our rights are fucking priveledges.</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Daz you maniac, you misspelt "privilege" Image

Spelling nazism aside, aren't rights and privileges different things?

"A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

What comes before the comma is an explanatory clause. "Shall not be infringed" seems pretty black and white.

------------------
Thus spake Shevarash: "Invokers are not going to be removed"
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Fri Jan 17, 2003 2:19 pm

I dont think the point was really about gun control. We've had that debate a couple times already. Cherzra represented the anti american point of view, etc... it was fun.

What abue is saying actually has some merit despite the unfortunate title of the thread which will cause people to overlook the content. Its kind of ridiculous when a gun manufacturer is sued for negligence because the gun they manufactured worked exactly as it was intended. 'But.. but.. it killed someone!!!!!!' No shit.. thats what guns are supposed to do.

On the other hand, I think the plaintiff might have a decent case against the gun shop. Apparently the snipers were able to steal the gun from right under the nose of the clerk in broad daylight. I could see a jury coming to the conclusion that a reasonable gun store owner would keep better control of his dangerous inventory. Unfortunately for the trial lawyers, the gun store isnt the party with the deep pockets. Thats when they need to get a little creative and find a reason to sue the corporation...

Corth

------------------
Goddamned slippery mage.
Silsaterur
Sojourner
Posts: 195
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Oakville, Ontario, Canada
Contact:

Postby Silsaterur » Fri Jan 17, 2003 3:05 pm

The amount of money that people can sue for in the states and the reasons they win are BEYOND retardation. Observe.

Road to the american dream.

Step 1
Suffer trauma.

Step 2
Go up the ladder of people involved and find the one with the biggest pocket.

Step 3
Sue, and play the jury with your pain.

Step 4
Be awarded umpteen million dollars in punative damages by a jury that doesn't know what the f*** they are doing.

Step 5
3nj0y.

It should be upto the JUDGE (the qualified leagal beagel that he/she is) to decide the amount awarded.

IF the family actually wins, I'm gonna goto detroit and play whiteboy in the ghetto until I have a few gun manufaturers to sue. (see step 1)

ps: For those of you who take everything literaly... I was being sarcastic.
Tasan
Sojourner
Posts: 1710
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Fridley, Mn USA
Contact:

Postby Tasan » Fri Jan 17, 2003 7:32 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Silsaterur:
<B>IF the family actually wins, I'm gonna goto detroit and play whiteboy in the ghetto until I have a few gun manufaturers to sue. (see step 1)

ps: For those of you who take everything literaly... I was being sarcastic.</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Veto. That position is already reserved for Thanuk and his Mullet-O-Doom.

Twinshadow

------------------
Kribble tells you 'everytime I've seen you die it was doing something cool or trying to save someone's ass... die away!'
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Postby Kifle » Fri Jan 17, 2003 9:28 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Silsaterur:
<B>It should be upto the JUDGE (the qualified leagal beagel that he/she is) to decide the amount awarded.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am not sure if this is a state law, but the judge can actually over-rule the amount the jury awards the plantif.

------------------
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Dartan tells you 'i own so hard sometimes it makes me want to cry'

Nitupopple group-says 'esrel get glorishan off'
old depok
Sojourner
Posts: 572
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Philadelphia PA USA

Postby old depok » Fri Jan 17, 2003 9:55 pm

Actually, the bringing of suits like this has been seen to be a successful way of bringing a product that represents a public hazard under control. One need only look so far as the Tabacco industry for an example. Now whether this worked in this instance or not I will leave for another day.

Laws are made that regulate firearms and the legal system is the process of interpreting those laws. The fact that law suits are brought is a good thing.

The overriding arguement is that guns kill people. The gun company knows that its product kills people. There is technology available today that could prevent most of the "accidental" shootings world wide that the gun companies have refused to implement.

The same technology would make firearms bought legally but for an illegal purchase (the subsequent selling of that firearm to a felone) a non issue.

So the case is easy: They know of a defect in their product that has caused deaths and know of a way to alter that product to make it safer and have not acted. Its actually a simple case of negligence.

The only way they will make the change however, is if they are forced to. And a judge is the best bet t have that happen as they are not lobbied like congress is.
Gort
Sojourner
Posts: 919
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Ft. Collins, CO

Postby Gort » Fri Jan 17, 2003 10:39 pm

Guns don't kill people, people do. Guns are a tool, one with a bit more likelihood to be used to accomplish said goal, but a mere tool none the less.

IMHO suing gun manufacturers for this kind of thing is just assinine.


Toplack

------------------
Lyt
Sojourner
Posts: 360
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Lyt » Sat Jan 18, 2003 1:17 am

This country is in serious need of tort reform. Remember the beloved tabacco lawsuit settlement? The lawyers got most of the money, out of all those billions of dollars. Remember one of those lawyers who defended OJ Simpson? Well he also defended a drug czar who paid him with stolen stock and bonds, and when the government demanded he turn it over, he went to jail rather than voluntarily give back the ill gotten gains. Gotta love the trial lawyers.

Lyt

------------------
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Sat Jan 18, 2003 1:34 am

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by old depok:
<B>Actually, the bringing of suits like this has been seen to be a successful way of bringing a product that represents a public hazard under control. One need only look so far as the Tabacco industry for an example. Now whether this worked in this instance or not I will leave for another day.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats quite undemocratic of you. A typical elitist liberal position. If the *elected* officials choose not to legislate a so-called 'hazard' then thats ok, the un-elected judges can fix it. We can't really trust the *elected* officials now.. can we? I mean.. look at the morons voting for them!



------------------
Goddamned slippery mage.
Kazibblie
Sojourner
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Sacramento, CA

Postby Kazibblie » Sat Jan 18, 2003 1:49 am

Go live somewhere else if you hate it so much. I'm so annoyed by the title of this thread, I don't dare say anything else.

------------------
Kaz
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Sat Jan 18, 2003 1:56 am

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Corth:
<B> Thats quite undemocratic of you. A typical elitist liberal position. If the *elected* officials choose not to legislate a so-called 'hazard' then thats ok, the un-elected judges can fix it. We can't really trust the *elected* officials now.. can we? I mean.. look at the morons voting for them!

</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


We can't trust the elected officials because they got elected by lying through their teeth. And even if they didn't, the bribes they receive from companies to promote their agendes eventually turn them into liars.

------------------
Every problem in the universe can be solved by finding the right long-haired prettyboy and beating the crap out of him.

"...it was not terribly difficult or scary unless you were a perhaps an adorable kitten and not a seasoned gamer." - Tycho, describing Panzer Dragoon Orta
Sylvos
Sojourner
Posts: 571
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Guelph, ON, Canada
Contact:

Postby Sylvos » Sat Jan 18, 2003 2:24 am

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Corth:
<B> Thats quite undemocratic of you. A typical elitist liberal position. If the *elected* officials choose not to legislate a so-called 'hazard' then thats ok, the un-elected judges can fix it. We can't really trust the *elected* officials now.. can we? I mean.. look at the morons voting for them!



</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The electoral college isn't very democratic either. *shrug* Democracy is all well and good, but as with most rules it gets ignored when a greater gain is available.
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Sat Jan 18, 2003 2:26 am

The electoral college is very democratic Image You have the electoral college for the same reason you have 2 senators from every state and varying amounts of congressman.

And sarvis, thanks for confirming what I said about how elites are in favor of activist judges. Image

Corth

------------------
Goddamned slippery mage.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Sat Jan 18, 2003 3:06 am

Err? I never said I was in favor of activist judges. I think the law suit which started this thread is the stupidest piece of crap we can waste a judges time with since that fat guy sued McDonald's.

I just don't like politicians.

------------------
Every problem in the universe can be solved by finding the right long-haired prettyboy and beating the crap out of him.

"...it was not terribly difficult or scary unless you were a perhaps an adorable kitten and not a seasoned gamer." - Tycho, describing Panzer Dragoon Orta
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Ragorn » Sat Jan 18, 2003 3:44 pm

Maybe the most ignorant thread I've read on this board in some time.

------------------
- Ragorn
Rondandal tells you 'I take it your goal is to clash?'
thanuk
Sojourner
Posts: 1902
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 5:01 am
Contact:

Postby thanuk » Sat Jan 18, 2003 5:17 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by old depok:
<B>The overriding arguement is that guns kill people. The gun company knows that its product kills people. There is technology available today that could prevent most of the "accidental" shootings world wide that the gun companies have refused to implement.

The same technology would make firearms bought legally but for an illegal purchase (the subsequent selling of that firearm to a felone) a non issue.

So the case is easy: They know of a defect in their product that has caused deaths and know of a way to alter that product to make it safer and have not acted. Its actually a simple case of negligence.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Could you explain the technology that would prevent the accidental shootings and illegal purchases? Or do you just mean making it harder for people to steal from gun stores...

At any rate, the rebuttle i have for the tobacco industry is the automobile industry. Sure you've all heard of the infamous exploding fords and chevy deathboxes, but those were only 2 unsafe cars out of the thousands of different models that are produced every year. A number of other cars were and are built without known safety devices that would prevent death, such as side impact airbags and re-inflating tires. The legal system consistently protected the automobile industry, simply because including all these safety features are so expensive that it just isn't pheasable. The gun situation is different, i know, but its a similar concept.

And in this particular case, i do think the gun store and its owner should most definately be held responsible. The gun dealer who sold it to the store, however, cant really be faulted, as once his guns are purchased he no longer has control over them. The store was licensed, so he *should* be protected. Then again, stranger things have happened...

------------------
Thanuk Pantherclaw

Gargauth responds to your petition with 'whats your point, we hate you'
Ashiwi
Sojourner
Posts: 4161
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 5:01 am

Postby Ashiwi » Sat Jan 18, 2003 5:53 pm

I just took that whole vent off here because it really didn't belong. You ever just have one of those nagging little things that bothers you until you open your mouth and spill it out, then you're all better?

We can't protect ourselves from ourselves.

[This message has been edited by Ashiwi (edited 01-18-2003).]
Iktar
Sojourner
Posts: 108
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2002 5:01 am

Postby Iktar » Sat Jan 18, 2003 6:51 pm

but come on!!!

if it wasn't for our law system, we wouldn't get our laffs of real warning labels and make average american look dumb!!!!

like on mcd coffee cup: Warning this coffee is hot!!

ahhaahahhhhhhhhh
Abue
Sojourner
Posts: 123
Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2001 5:01 am

Postby Abue » Mon Jan 20, 2003 1:50 pm

HEHE! Corth should be my editor. I am not good at thinking of titles to posts or emails. What I ment in this post is that I have a real problem with the way litigation and the threat of lawsuits cause havoc in peoples lives these days. Try and do anything these days and it costs a shit load more because of previous litigation. Our taxes are higher because of litigation. Our health care is unaffordable and in some cases dissappearing. The cost of doing just about any business in this country is much higher because of silly suits that have no merit. These costs are pass directly to the customers. Our insurance is higher as a result of all this litigation. You need more insurance because of the threat of big time litigation. I am not even talking about businesses, I am talking just to be a home owner and have a freaking Dog. I know people who own a horse. They have to have a multimillion dollar insurance policy incase somebody climbs the electric fence with no traspassing signs on it and scares the horse and gets stepped on. This is the reason I titled my post the way I did. This problem is a cancer to this nation. Situations like the artical in the original post really strike a bad note with me. The only reason the gun manufacturer was included was because it has deeper pockets to raid. The greedy lawyers know this.
Gort
Sojourner
Posts: 919
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Ft. Collins, CO

Postby Gort » Mon Jan 20, 2003 7:27 pm

I know this comment will be in poor taste, and it is somewhat sarcastically said, but...


" Perhaps we should have a hunting season for trial lawyers. "

I'd simply prefer it if the lawyer lost the suit he brought, he had to pay the court costs and fees, as well as would be subjected to countersuit, or some form of stiff penalty. This would discourage frivolous lawsuits some, having judges with common sense rule that the line of causality in responsibility were limited by common sense, and penalize idiots like the McDonalds woman that got the coffee disclaimer severely.

Take the above with a grain of salt, and a sense of twisted humor in the case of the quote.

Toplack

------------------
Abue
Sojourner
Posts: 123
Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2001 5:01 am

Postby Abue » Wed Jan 22, 2003 6:32 pm

The legal system finally got one right in this one.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=564&ncid=564&e=1&u= /nm/20030122/ts_nm/food_mcdonalds_dc_5

Here is yet another example of a stupid person who needs to have Natural Selection run its course. I have a hard time understanding how McDonalds could be held responsible for this 170 pound 4 foot 10 inch chicks weight problem.

[This message has been edited by Abue (edited 01-22-2003).]
Guest

Postby Guest » Thu Jan 23, 2003 1:59 am

Corth: Cherzra gave his usual anti-american point of view, which was very fun...

Ok, because cherzra has opinions that differ from yours, and probably from the Majority of voters in USA (maybe), he is anti american? How do you define American? When i was in university in the states, we had to write a paper about that, and it proved to be much harder than supposed, especially after we got the first draft back which needed to be corrected for unsubstantiated, idealistic, stereotypical and quite often heavily biased/prejudiced bullshit. Our professor really chewed us up good on that one, especially since MOST of the students had a very one sided if not completely blind view on CONSTITUTIONAL rights, and their effect on DEFINING americanism. A good excercise, especially when we realized that despite the average spread of canned patriotism, some of our good friends had quite different ideas, which deserved (and were promised) protection under the constitution. MY POINT (especially if Malar is reading this, so here it comes, malar, the point is).. A fundamental reason for the freedoms of both speech and expression is, that there is often a person or group of people with a view that is opposed to the common view of the populace, and that indeed the ability to express this view is of PARAMOUNT importance if the integrity of democracy is to be preserved. Expressing your views freely, no matter how un-popular they may be AT THE TIME, is a key part of defining both AMERICANISM and DEMOCRACY. SO HOW DARE YOU CALL HIM UNAMERICAN simply for having and expressing a view which differs from you. Part of the reason so many of us believe in the right to bear arms, isnt it? SO that we can put down a government that gets out of control. Well, Cherzra's views are like your guns. Only, he uses words instead of bullets.
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Thu Jan 23, 2003 3:01 am

I wasn't calling cherzra un-American, though it would be quite accurate. He lives in the Netherlands. What, exactly, this has to do with freedom of speech, and how exactly freedom of speech is relevent to the topic in this thread, I have no idea whatsoever.

Corth

------------------
Goddamned slippery mage.

[This message has been edited by Corth (edited 01-22-2003).]
Xisiqomelir
Sojourner
Posts: 870
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Ixarkon
Contact:

Postby Xisiqomelir » Thu Jan 23, 2003 4:21 am

Corth, I liked your version 1 of the above post much better, it was far more succint Image

------------------
Thus spake Shevarash: "Invokers are not going to be removed"
Sarkhon
Sojourner
Posts: 53
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2001 6:01 am
Location: New York, NY

Postby Sarkhon » Thu Jan 23, 2003 4:50 am

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Gort:
<B> " Perhaps we should have a hunting season for trial lawyers. "

I'd simply prefer it if the lawyer lost the suit he brought, he had to pay the court costs and fees, as well as would be subjected to countersuit, or some form of stiff penalty.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nevermind... not worth it... grumble.

[This message has been edited by Sarkhon (edited 01-22-2003).]
Guest

Postby Guest » Thu Jan 23, 2003 3:19 pm

Why freedom of speech/expression is relevant to this topic (or rather to the posts about unamericanism).
Well first, it is IRRELEVANT where cherzra comes from. Imagine you dont know. He gives his point, and you denounce it for being 'unamerican.' Perhaps you find out later he IS from another country. You will then argue that you are even more right, even tho his statement, which is the basis for the argument, has not changed at all. Now suppose, that cherzra MOVES to the states. Legally, to make it nice. And he gives the SAME viewpoint word for word. Is he now less or more american, according to your standards? Brings up the good point that 99.9% of all americans came from or are descended from people who came from somewhere else, which further undermines any importance of where cherzra comes from.

But the reason I took offense, and the point where freedoms of speech/expression comes into play, is that the use of those freedoms, unlike original nationality, have ALOT to do with defining what is american. Our great freedoms are part of what makes this country great, and special, and allow us to be free individuals. So Cherzra, by freely giving his opinion, whether it be popular or unpopular, is actually acting VERY american while you, corth, seem to have forgotten the defining factors of your own constitution. How can people who freely express their views be unamerican, unless you are going to impose your own standards on them (many of us dont like what he said, therefore he is unamerican), which kind of goes against the whole freedom principal. No individuals or groups get to do that. That kind of hypocracy is dangerous. It undermines our own rights and freedoms, and thats why we HAVE the constitution. So dont forget it, and please, stop calling folks unamerican when they go against the grain (im just asking, cuz it IS your right to say whatever you want).
By the way, I think it's great that messages here dont get erased or edited when they piss lots of people off because they are SO against the grain (or just because they may be inflammatory...many of cherzra's points, i feel, are flat out racism). America *IS* great in that respect.
Ashiwi
Sojourner
Posts: 4161
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 5:01 am

Postby Ashiwi » Thu Jan 23, 2003 3:35 pm

Grorrak there's something that you're totally missing here which is very relevant. You can go on and on and on about how we shouldn't label Cherz as unAmerican or anti-American or whatever it is you're trying to defend him on, but before you have too much of a conniption on his behalf about how bad we are for calling him something like that you need to know what Cherz calls himself. He's stood up several times before and let everybody know how anti-American he is and how much he despises the US. It's his right to do so, and even if he lived in the US and reaped all the benefits of living here it would still be his right to do so.

Cherz can hold any opinion he wants, but to say that he's "anti-American" isn't flaming him, it's agreeing with him, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. Take a deep breath and relax.
Xisiqomelir
Sojourner
Posts: 870
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Ixarkon
Contact:

Postby Xisiqomelir » Thu Jan 23, 2003 4:39 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Ashiwi:
You can go on and on and on about how we shouldn't label Cherz as unAmerican or anti-American or whatever it is you're trying to defend him on, but before you have too much of a conniption on his behalf about how bad we are for calling him something like that you need to know what Cherz calls himself. </font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As Ashiwi spoils the fun Image

------------------
Thus spake Shevarash: "Invokers are not going to be removed"
Ashiwi
Sojourner
Posts: 4161
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 5:01 am

Postby Ashiwi » Thu Jan 23, 2003 5:07 pm

Doggoneit, did I do that again?

::scuffs her toe into the floor::

Cherz is a pinko-commie!
old depok
Sojourner
Posts: 572
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Philadelphia PA USA

Postby old depok » Fri Jan 24, 2003 3:54 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by thanuk:
<B> Could you explain the technology that would prevent the accidental shootings and illegal purchases? Or do you just mean making it harder for people to steal from gun stores...

At any rate, the rebuttle i have for the tobacco industry is the automobile industry. Sure you've all heard of the infamous exploding fords and chevy deathboxes, but those were only 2 unsafe cars out of the thousands of different models that are produced every year. A number of other cars were and are built without known safety devices that would prevent death, such as side impact airbags and re-inflating tires. The legal system consistently protected the automobile industry, simply because including all these safety features are so expensive that it just isn't pheasable. The gun situation is different, i know, but its a similar concept.

And in this particular case, i do think the gun store and its owner should most definately be held responsible. The gun dealer who sold it to the store, however, cant really be faulted, as once his guns are purchased he no longer has control over them. The store was licensed, so he *should* be protected. Then again, stranger things have happened...

</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There are a few technologies that exist today that can prevent accidental shootings:

Gun locks are the easiest. Every gun should come with a gun lock.

Smart guns - the technology exists today to make it so that a gun recognizes one user and is inopperable for all others.

If smart guns were implemented anyone who purchased a gun through another person would have to have the gun "reset" to match their finger or palm print. This could involve a quick background check to insure that they were not felons.

The car example is a good one. Cars are inherintly dangerous but the have a redeeming value as a product in that they provide transportation.

If implementing the safety feature (example side impact airbags) means that the cost of the car increases beyond what many consumers can afford, then the value of the safety feature may be less than the effect it creates.

The same arguement falls apart when you look at a gun since the value of the gun to society is far less than the value of the car.

Corth -

The legislative branch of the government is one of three branches of the government that makes laws. Congress passes laws, the President signs them, the legislative branch interprets them.

I am as democratic as the next person. But when you watch congress believing for years the tabacco companies line of "smoking doesn't cause cancer" because they were getting millions of campaign dollars you gotta start thinking there needs to be another way of accomplishing what needs to happen.
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Fri Jan 24, 2003 5:20 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by old depok:
<B>
Corth -

The legislative branch of the government is one of three branches of the government that makes laws. Congress passes laws, the President signs them, the legislative branch interprets them.

I am as democratic as the next person. But when you watch congress believing for years the tabacco companies line of "smoking doesn't cause cancer" because they were getting millions of campaign dollars you gotta start thinking there needs to be another way of accomplishing what needs to happen.

</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


The way the system is usually described, Congress writes the laws, the president executes them (enforces them), and the courts interpret them. You said that the legislative branch interprets laws but I think you meant to say the courts. That would be correct. But interpretation of law is not creation of law. Simply put, judges are not constitutionally permitted to create law. That power is vested solely in the legislature. However, there is a fine line between statutory interpretation and judicial lawmaking. If you ask a federal judge if she makes law, she will probably say 'not at all' and give you a wink. The truth is, they do it all the time. Sometimes its inevitable due to poorly written statutes or gray areas where the legislative intent is unclear. In most cases, the courts are faithful to the underlying statutory authority. However, there have been many instances of judicial overraching where new law is created out of whole cloth under the pretext of statutory interpretation. This type of behavior is encouraged by organizations with an unpopular agenda. Its a lot easier to convince a single federal judge to rule in your favor and make some new law than it is to convince the people of the country to vote for politicians that agree with you. That is why it is undemocratic to suggest that the courts should get involved when the legislature has chosen not to.

What you havent accepted is the fact that the system might be slow, but it works. Politicans do take money from such organizations as big tobbaco, but when there is enough popular support for or against something, they will vote along with what their constituents want. For instance, there was enough popular support for campaign finance reform that the politicians voluntarily killed off their own cash cow. For you to suggest that the judges need to step in every time the elected legislature decides not to regulare something because "there needs to be another way of accomplishing what needs to happen" is for you to admit that you have no confidence in the constitution, and the american system of government. I suggest you start looking at other systems with that same critical perspective.

Corth

------------------
Goddamned slippery mage.
old depok
Sojourner
Posts: 572
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Philadelphia PA USA

Postby old depok » Fri Jan 24, 2003 5:48 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Corth:
<B>
The way the system is usually described, Congress writes the laws, the president executes them (enforces them), and the courts interpret them. You said that the legislative branch interprets laws but I think you meant to say the courts. That would be correct. But interpretation of law is not creation of law. Simply put, judges are not constitutionally permitted to create law. That power is vested solely in the legislature. However, there is a fine line between statutory interpretation and judicial lawmaking. If you ask a federal judge if she makes law, she will probably say 'not at all' and give you a wink. The truth is, they do it all the time. Sometimes its inevitable due to poorly written statutes or gray areas where the legislative intent is unclear. In most cases, the courts are faithful to the underlying statutory authority. However, there have been many instances of judicial overraching where new law is created out of whole cloth under the pretext of statutory interpretation. This type of behavior is encouraged by organizations with an unpopular agenda. Its a lot easier to convince a single federal judge to rule in your favor and make some new law than it is to convince the people of the country to vote for politicians that agree with you. That is why it is undemocratic to suggest that the courts should get involved when the legislature has chosen not to.

What you havent accepted is the fact that the system might be slow, but it works. Politicans do take money from such organizations as big tobbaco, but when there is enough popular support for or against something, they will vote along with what their constituents want. For instance, there was enough popular support for campaign finance reform that the politicians voluntarily killed off their own cash cow. For you to suggest that the judges need to step in every time the elected legislature decides not to regulare something because "there needs to be another way of accomplishing what needs to happen" is for you to admit that you have no confidence in the constitution, and the american system of government. I suggest you start looking at other systems with that same critical perspective.

Corth

</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


You misunderstand me. I think that the American system of government is by far the best system thought up so far.

You state :

they will vote along with what their constituents want

There are times when leaders need to lead instead of follow. Yes, politicians need to listen to the people who elected them but, there are times when what their constituants want and what is right are in direct opposition.

There are countless examples when people have stepped up and done what was right for the country even when it hurt them in their backyards.

I did not suggest that "For you to suggest that the judges need to step in every time the elected legislature decides not to regulare"

I stated that there are times when creative use of the law can accomplish some things that the other branches of government can't seem to get to.

The appeals process will insure that there is not one rogue judge out there making up new law.

Also, there are times when the will of the people can be expressed through class action lawsuits.

I do think that people need to take more individual responsibilities. This is one case where I think it is clear that pressure outside of Washington needs to be applied to force changes that are clearly needed.

Can anyone argue that the changes that I propose are a bad thing?
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Fri Jan 24, 2003 9:40 pm

You bring up a lot of points, I'll address a few of them.

1. You argue that a real leader will often do something that is unpopular yet he knows that it is right. I cannot argue against this. However, on issues of fundamental public interest, you will rarely see this happen. This type of thing happens on the margins. When you have a real issue, both sides battle for the public's support. Anything else would indicate that we live in a dictatorship (please dont reply, grrorak).

2). You suggest "creative use of law" as a remedy for the slow legislative process. Thats a nasty little euphamism. One of the necessary components of a legitimate code of law is certainty in the law. When law is manipulated from case to case in order so that the judges can come to the 'correct' outcome (according to their view of the world), then respect for the law as a whole is diminished. Law provides a framework under which people deal with each other. It allows us to contract with each other, get reimbursed for injuries caused by another, and walk down the street with the reasonable belief that our possessions or life will not arbitrarily be taken away. Our expectations values, and beliefs are formed in part by the system of law under which we live. When law is 'used creatively', i.e. routinely manipulated to serve the purpose of the judges (an elite), then there is less certainty in the law, and furthermore, less certainty in our expectations, values, and beliefs.

3) You suggest that the Appellate process would provide a check on judicial power. A more accurate way of putting it would be to say that appellate courts provide a check on unrestrained trial judges. What you are neglecting to take into account is that the appeals judges are often the worst abusers of the judicial power. The ultimate Appellate court, the Supreme Court of the United States, was notorious for creating law to further its progressive politics during the the mid 20th century. Most of us would agree with some of the more 'creative' decisions of that court. However, more than a few of their landmark decisions are still controversial today, not the least of which was Roe v. Wade.

4) Roe v. Wade is the ultimate example of judicial overreaching. I want to emphasize that I am pro-choice and believe strongly that abortion should be legal. However, this case was idiotic:

A) There is nothing in the constitution that even remotely discusses a right to have an abortion. The court had to rely on a shady doctrine called "substantive due process" in order to justify it. Interestingly enough, substantive due process originated in the infamous (because of how racist it was) Dred Scott decision. Dred Scott is a great example of what happens when the 'other' side uses law creatively.

B) Before Roe v. Wade abortion was not uniformly illegal. Each state had the power to regulate abortions. Roe v. Wade simply made abortion legal throughout the country. Rather than spend considerable time and effort to convince the public in each State that abortions should be allowed, the proponents did an end run and convinced the Supreme Court. If Roe v. Wade were overturned today, most states would still allow abortions. Perhaps a few in the bible belt wouldnt. Thats the way it should be. The laws of a jurisdiction should comport with the values of the people that live there.

C) Roe v. Wade has not been satisfactory to anyone involved. Those in favor of abortion know that the case is tenuous and can be overturned if just one or two new judges are allowed on the court. They also dislike some of the recent limits to abortion that have been placed by a more conservative court. Those opposed to abortion believe that the Supreme Court usurped the power of the states by even getting involved in the first place. Some of them live in states where the majority believe abortion should be illegal, yet they have no power to do anything about it. They believe that the more conservative court has not gone far enough to limit Roe or even overrule it.

D) The end result is the politiciation of the judicial branch. Supreme Court nominees are vetted endlessly about their views on different *political* topics because they might eventually put to rest any debate on a *political* issue with a single ruling. Each new judge is a potential ally or enemy to an agenda. Each time a new judge enters the court there is trepidation about whether Roe will survive. The ironic thing is that the bigger the issue the greater the concern. Its exactly these big issues that should be decided by the people through their power to elect a legislature, not by a judicial elite.

E) I'm not saying that everything should be decided by the majority. One of the great things about the constitution is that it protects the minority against the majority in terms of civil rights. For instance, the lone dissenter cannot be silenced, he has the right to express himself. However, the right to freedom of speech is itself contained within a law, the constitution, and thus the courts have a legitimate reason to interpret it. A law written by congress should be invalidated when it infringes upon a right contain within the Constitution because the Constitution is a higher law and cannot be abrogated by mere legislative acts. Such an abrogation would require the 'super majority' needed to ammend the constitution.

5) You suggest that the will of the people can often be accomplished through the use of the class-action lawsuit. The problem with this theory is that by definition, a class-action lawsuit must involve a limited class of plaintiffs. A limited class of people can never fully represent all of us. Only a democratically elected legislature and executive can.

Corth

------------------
Goddamned slippery mage.
ssar
Sojourner
Posts: 1446
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Contact:

Postby ssar » Fri Jan 24, 2003 10:16 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Gort:
" Perhaps we should have a hunting season for trial lawyers. "</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is one of the best quotes regarding guns and lawyers I have ever seen.
The world dont need any additional hunting seasons though - ban duck & deer hunting, replace with lawyers and rapists.

------------------
Mogr -=BloodSeeker=-
"If it bleeds, we can killit."
Kossuth OOC: 'haha, the combination unibrow/combover... i hear gargauth has that'
Guest

Postby Guest » Sat Jan 25, 2003 11:35 am

'Anti-American' and 'Un-American' have radically different definitions, btw. Corth didn't use the phrase 'Un-American', he said 'Anti-American'. Appropriate use of the term, when describing someone from outside of the US who has a disdain for many of the US's views.

I doubt very seriously if Cherzra would even argue with that at all. I'd say he's happily 'Anti-American'.

------------------
Iyachtu Decrees 'if (!strcmp(GET_NAME(ch), "Peter Jackson"))
SuddenDeath(ch);'
Xisiqomelir
Sojourner
Posts: 870
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Ixarkon
Contact:

Postby Xisiqomelir » Sat Jan 25, 2003 12:07 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Corth:
<B>4) Roe v. Wade is the ultimate example of judicial overreaching
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Constitution for the United States of America
Article 3
Section 2.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Corth:
There is nothing in the constitution that even remotely discusses a right to have an abortion.
</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Happily, you have teh super vague 9th Amendment to save the day!

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


------------------
Thus spake Shevarash: "Invokers are not going to be removed"

[This message has been edited by Xisiqomelir (edited 01-25-2003).]
Guest

Postby Guest » Sat Jan 25, 2003 1:16 pm

AWESOME documentary film on Americas epic problem with violent crime.

BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE

This is serious journalism which provides a theory to americas souring violent crime in comparison to the other first world countries, and examines the possibilities in real physical detail. Shocking, funny, disturbing, it will definitely wake you up, if you have the guts to sit through and watch the whole thing.
Guest

Postby Guest » Sat Jan 25, 2003 1:21 pm

I guess I should at least say that my definition of anti-american is something that wants to undermine or destroy the basic freedoms and democracy of our country. Nothing else. Pinko-communism is not necessarily anti-democratic (has much more to do with economy in reality) but kicking people who vote for socialism or communism out of the country IS anti-american. As are most of our high ranking politicians for that matter. Those guys HATE democracy, especially if its in a country that supports our economy.
Xisiqomelir
Sojourner
Posts: 870
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Ixarkon
Contact:

Postby Xisiqomelir » Sat Jan 25, 2003 1:52 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Corth:
<B>The court had to rely on a shady doctrine called "substantive due process" in order to justify it.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Almost missed this one. Talk about prejudicial language Image

"Substantive due process" is not some strange apocryphic obscurity. It is really a very simple legal theory.

The Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause: ...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

"Subtantive due process" basically adds "without due substance of law" to the last part. So, instead of reading it as:

"No deprivation of life, liberty or property unless proper processes are followed"

It is interpreted as:

"No deprivation of life, liberty or property without proper legal justification, regardless of whether proper processes are followed"

So it's by no means "shady"

------------------
Thus spake Shevarash: "Invokers are not going to be removed"

[This message has been edited by Xisiqomelir (edited 01-25-2003).]
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Sat Jan 25, 2003 6:00 pm

A)
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> "Subtantive due process" basically adds "without due substance of law" to the last part. </font>


Adding a sentence to the constitution, Xis, without a constitutional amendment, is certainly pretty shady. At least in the US, I'm not sure about Singapore.

B) <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Constitution for the United States of America
Article 3
Section 2.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority </font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ahh great! You know how to quote the constitution, I'm happy for you. I can do it too! Sorry to say, Xis, that this passage doesn't give the Judicial branch absolute and totalitarian control over anything brought before it. That would render the whole 'checks and balances' thing meaningless wouldn't it? The passage you quote gives the court *jurisdiction* over cases brought under the constitution and laws of the country. Thankfully, the US is a country of limited government. The federal government is only allowed to make laws concerning a few very specific areas, the most prominent one being commerce. The constitution can be ammended in any way but requires a super-majority vote. Roe v. Wade contained a *constitutional* argument that women have a right to obtain abortions. The Court certainly had jurisdiction to hear the case, as it fell under the constitution (and various other arcane requirements were met). This doesn't mean that they ruled correctly. When you find some language in the constitution supporting the right to an abortion I suggest you quote that too. There are probably a passage or two you can dredge up and make a tortured argument out of. The court managed to do it, why not you?

C) Oh yeah, you did find some of their tortured constitutional reasoning! I quote Groliers concerning the 9th Amendment:

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
The 9th Amendment was thus a precautionary measure to protect possible but unspecified rights which might be challenged in future controversy. These rights have not been defined, and the 9th Amendment has not been used to any great extent. In recent years the amendment has been cited in various cases as part of the basis of a constitutional right to privacy. The Supreme Court, however, has found the right to privacy to exist elsewhere as well--in the "penumbra" of other amendments and in the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment. </font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So the 9th amendment states that the constitution does not abrogate natural law. For almost 200 years it was considered a meaningless passage, but all of a sudden the court pulls a right to privacy out of its ass and says that it falls under natural law, and furthermore uses the 9th amendment for the first time to give it constitutional legitimacy. From there they had to somehow take this abstract idea of a constitutional privacy right and find a way for abortion to come under it. Kind of undermines the idea of limited government, doesn't it, when you can basically make anything fall under the constitution if it suits your purposes? Of course they knew it was ridiculous so they found even more tortured Constitutional logic to justify their position. The idea that a constitutional right exists within the 'penumbra' of other amendments, or, when you take the constituion as a whole, you get the feeling that it probably wants abortion to be a listed, but doesnt actually get around to saying it, is the most ridiculous in this idiotic line of legal reasoning.

However, I must say its refreshing that you actually quoted some authority rather than completely talk out of your ass like most people do on this subject.

Corth

------------------
Goddamned slippery mage.

[This message has been edited by Corth (edited 01-25-2003).]
Xisiqomelir
Sojourner
Posts: 870
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Ixarkon
Contact:

Postby Xisiqomelir » Sat Jan 25, 2003 6:23 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Corth:
<B>Adding a sentence to the constitution, Xis, without a constitutional amendment, is certainly pretty shady. At least in the US, I'm not sure about Singapore.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I actually don't bother with the Singapore constitution, because it's murky garbled rubbish for the most part, and what IS clear is quickly amended away by the tireless PAP government, bless them.

I meant nonshady as in transparent to understand, I didn't say I approved of the substantive due process theory. Literalist that I am, I think your constitution should be followed to the letter. I DO believe that abortion is one of the rights reserved to the people by the Ninth amendment. And I also believe that your Supreme Court should quash unconstitutional state legislation. Roe vs Wade wasn't making new law, it was invalidating old ones.

------------------
Thus spake Shevarash: "Invokers are not going to be removed"
Xisiqomelir
Sojourner
Posts: 870
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Ixarkon
Contact:

Postby Xisiqomelir » Sun Jan 26, 2003 10:56 am

Alright, to start with I suppose I should clarify my opinion on Constitutional interpretation. My view is the absolute literalism is what is called for, and that what is in the Constitution should be taken exactly as it is written.

Now, substantive due process relies on a very peculiar reading of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Peculiar in the sense that the words "due substance" are considered to be there. However, anyone who simply looks at the clause for himself:

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">The Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause: ...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law <---Look Ma, no "substance"!</font>


Can see that this is not so. Therefore, I consider substantive due process to be invalid. If that's you meant by "shady", I will readily concede the point. So, I concur with you that substantive due process is a legal theory which has no Constitutional authority.

Now on to teh fun part of the discussion, the validity of Roe vs Wade, and the powers of the supreme court Image

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Corth:
<B>Ahh great! You know how to quote the constitution, I'm happy for you. I can do it too! Sorry to say, Xis, that this passage doesn't give the Judicial branch absolute and totalitarian control over anything brought before it. That would render the whole 'checks and balances' thing meaningless wouldn't it? The passage you quote gives the court *jurisdiction* over cases brought under the constitution and laws of the country.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK, here's section one and two from Article Three, with the parts pertinent to my position in bold:

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
<B>Constitution of the United States of America
Article. III.

Section. 1. </B>

The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section. 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State (Modified by Amendment XI);--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My literal reading of those lines indicates that

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.</font>


The Supreme Court, and other inferior courts have the judicial power of the country.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority</font>


That said judicial power applies to all cases under the Constitution and the Law, Roe vs Wade dealing with both state law and the Constitution.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.</font>


The State of Texas being the defendant in Roe vs Wade, jurisdiction properly lay with the Supreme Court, and not with any of the inferior ones.

And a quick dictionary definition of the word "jurisdiction"

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">jurisdiction n The right and power to interpret and apply the law</font>


Which I would say DOES give the Supreme Court authority over the law.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Corth:
The constitution can be ammended in any way but requires a super-majority vote. Roe v. Wade contained a *constitutional* argument that women have a right to obtain abortions. The Court certainly had jurisdiction to hear the case, as it fell under the constitution (and various other arcane requirements were met). This doesn't mean that they ruled correctly.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, I agree with you. In Roe vs Wade, the Supreme Court ruled that the right to abortion fell under the scope of "privacy", part of the "liberty" mentioned in the Fourteenth Amendment. Which makes no sense, since Section One of that Amendment allows State deprivation of liberty so long as due process of law is followed (Setting Subtantive Due Process firmly aside). So, the court's reasoning behind the judgement, and hence the judgement itself, are invalid due to inappropriate reasoning <----This is a concession!

So, where's my argument? It's all about this line right here (and the authority of the Supreme Court, above):

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Corth:
There is nothing in the constitution that even remotely discusses a right to have an abortion.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So, let's go back again to the "anything goes" Ninth Amendment:

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Read literally:

<I>"Just because the Constitution mentions certain specific rights, is no justification to
deny other rights it does not mention"</I>

And what are these other rights? They're totally unspecified! So, we'll go to the definition of the "basic right". And if a woman's control of her own reproductive biology isn't as basic as it can possibly be, then I don't know what is.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Corth:
So the 9th amendment states that the constitution does not abrogate natural law. For almost 200 years it was considered a meaningless passage, but all of a sudden the court pulls a right to privacy out of its ass and says that it falls under natural law, and furthermore uses the 9th amendment for the first time to give it constitutional legitimacy. From there they had to somehow take this abstract idea of a constitutional privacy right and find a way for abortion to come under it. Kind of undermines the idea of limited government, doesn't it, when you can basically make anything fall under the constitution if it suits your purposes? Of course they knew it was ridiculous so they found even more tortured Constitutional logic to justify their position. The idea that a constitutional right exists within the 'penumbra' of other amendments, or, when you take the constituion as a whole, you get the feeling that it probably wants abortion to be a listed, but doesnt actually get around to saying it, is the most ridiculous in this idiotic line of legal reasoning. </font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which I disagree with, because the right to an abortion does fall under the rights reserved to the people by the Ninth Amendment.

SUMMARY <---For people who are lazy

I AGREE with Corth that:

1) Substantive due process is a doctrine with no constitutional authority, and hence, no validity

2) The Supreme Court employed some truly Byzantine reasoning in coming to it's conclusion in Roe vs Wade

I DISPUTE his points that:

1) The Supreme Court has no authority to quash unconstitutional state laws

2) Abortion is not a right protected by the Constitution


(EDIT: Yes, I am teh suck at BBCode)
------------------
Thus spake Shevarash: "Invokers are not going to be removed"

[This message has been edited by Xisiqomelir (edited 01-26-2003).]
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Sun Jan 26, 2003 7:02 pm

Xis,

While its admirable that you would take the time and effort to learn and analyze legal documents from a country your not a native of, I would suggest that you retain a lawyer should you ever get in trouble in the states. There are terms within the constitution that have very specific meanings, based in history or in modern interpretation. Quick example, you quote that in cases concerning ambassadors, states, etc, the supreme court shall have original jurisdiction. From this line, you conclude that the supreme court certainly had jurisdiction over Roe v. Wade because the defendant was a state. I am not disputing that the court had jurisdiction. However, the line about original jurisdiction has been meaningless for 100 years. Original jurisdiction doesnt mean exclusive jurisdiction which is how you understand it. It means jurisdiction over the matter at the trial phase. The supreme court never acts as a trial court anymore. Like I said, this is a quick example. There are others but I dont really care to go through each one. Your methodology is correct. You support your arguments with authority. However, there are 200 years worth of cases and scholarly articles interpreting your authority and you need to be aware of at least some of it if you are going to make a persuasive case.

Corth

------------------
Goddamned slippery mage.
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Sun Jan 26, 2003 7:03 pm

And btw, to clear up one thing. I believe very strongly, xis, that the Supreme Court has the right to quash unconstitutional State laws. I also believe that under the doctrine of judicial restraint, they should not find 'creative' ways to find unconstitutional, state laws which they merely do not like.

Corth

------------------
Goddamned slippery mage.
Xisiqomelir
Sojourner
Posts: 870
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Ixarkon
Contact:

Postby Xisiqomelir » Mon Jan 27, 2003 2:13 am

Well, we'll agree that our interpretations are different, then. I took up reading your Constitution in school, which as anyone Asian can attest to, is filled with mind-numbing drudgery. And I'd never attempt defending myself legally, that's what professionals are for. Image

------------------
Thus spake Shevarash: "Invokers are not going to be removed"
Sarkhon
Sojourner
Posts: 53
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2001 6:01 am
Location: New York, NY

Postby Sarkhon » Mon Jan 27, 2003 3:06 am

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Xisiqomelir:
<B>
2) Abortion is not a right protected by the Constitution
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Simply put, it's not. As Corth stated, Roe is predicated on an assinine theory developed by a zone of privacy within the home/family (basically emerging from cases involving the parental right to school their children as they see fit be it with public schools, in foreign languages, etc). This whole theory was initially derived from a "penumbra of rights" under the 1st, 4th, and 9th amendments ... i'm not gonna outline why the penumbra is bogus other than to say that if a "fundamental right" needs to be derived from a multitude of amendments, and weakly at that, then it's likely not fundamental to begin with.

Roe then stretched that theory one step further to say that this "zone of privacy" should then go even further towards protecting a right to abortion. As my first year Constitutional Law professor (a flaming liberal, nonetheless) so boldly put it, "this reasoning flops on its face."

The whole notion of strict scrutiny which the court relies on in its analysis is bogus b/c it presupposes a fundamental right exists -- no such right exists here, as abortion is never explicitly mentioned in the constituion. Moreover, even if we were to stretch an amendment to imply such a right, the entire reasoning relies on the bogus penumbra to create such a right ...

The long twisting road of the court's reasoning just gets worse and worse. Simply put, Roe is the epitome of judicial overreaching and exemplifies what the notions of public policy can do to a seemingly clear cut decision. Even most liberals who read the decisions closely will admit (possibly only in private though Image) that the decision's rationale is a load of nonsense.

Yep, I think that's about enough for now



[This message has been edited by Sarkhon (edited 01-26-2003).]
Hastrom
Sojourner
Posts: 9
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Kent, Wa

Postby Hastrom » Mon Jan 27, 2003 3:32 am

wonder if theres a news channel out there that could ponder all these thoughts
and then talk about em also


[This message has been edited by Hastrom (edited 01-27-2003).]
Abue
Sojourner
Posts: 123
Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2001 5:01 am

Postby Abue » Mon Jan 27, 2003 1:05 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Corth:
<B>The supreme court never acts as a trial court anymore.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In the case of a foreign diplomat or high ranking foreign government official, doesn't the Supreme Court have jurisdiction to hear the trial if accused of some crime? I will have to check this out but it seems to me I heard something like this one time or another.



[This message has been edited by Abue (edited 01-27-2003).]

Return to “S3 General Discussion Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests