Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Dominance in other Countries?


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> RE: Dominance in other Countries? Page: <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Dominance in other Countries? - 11/6/2008 4:10:43 AM   
Rover


Posts: 2634
Joined: 6/28/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MarcEsadrian

I for the most part agree with you, John. But times do change, and sometimes we need clarity on matters that are vital to our freedoms, or others would just as nefariously exploit ambiguity in our government's framework for their own agendas.


Marc, there was (and is) nothing ambiguous about the rights granted in the Constitution.  What has changed is that nine black robed Justices, without the consent of the governed, have decided that it should mean something else or something additional.  That is not clarifying ambiguity, it's amending the Constitution and for that we have a clear and unambiguous process (which I have previously posted in this thread).
 
Seriously, you're looking for justification for the Judicially mandated amendments that you like, while seeking redress for what you perceive to be Executively mandated amendments.  If you justify one, you justify the other.  Neither is correct. 
 
John

_____________________________

"Man's mind stretched to a new idea never goes back to its original dimensions."

Sri da Avabhas

(in reply to MarcEsadrian)
Profile   Post #: 141
RE: Dominance in other Countries? - 11/6/2008 4:41:58 AM   
HalloweenWhite


Posts: 1028
Joined: 6/20/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rover

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

I reckon you could be shacked up with a penguin, here, and the government wouldn't bat a collective eye-lid. A public movement threatening the English way of life, would be a different matter altogether. 


Does that mean to imply that shacking up with a penguin is part of the fabric of English life?
 
Inquiring minds want to know.
 
John



Actually, I've just collard a whole bunch of penguins, who I've found much easier to control than able bodied women, who are all bigger than Me, trouble is, b.j's are a bit more of a risk though.

(in reply to Rover)
Profile   Post #: 142
RE: Dominance in other Countries? - 11/6/2008 4:58:11 AM   
Rover


Posts: 2634
Joined: 6/28/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: HalloweenWhite

Actually, I've just collard a whole bunch of penguins, who I've found much easier to control than able bodied women, who are all bigger than Me, trouble is, b.j's are a bit more of a risk though.


Look at the bright side... there's no need to spend big money on evening wear.
 
John

_____________________________

"Man's mind stretched to a new idea never goes back to its original dimensions."

Sri da Avabhas

(in reply to HalloweenWhite)
Profile   Post #: 143
RE: Dominance in other Countries? - 11/6/2008 5:17:21 AM   
HalloweenWhite


Posts: 1028
Joined: 6/20/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rover

quote:

ORIGINAL: HalloweenWhite

Actually, I've just collard a whole bunch of penguins, who I've found much easier to control than able bodied women, who are all bigger than Me, trouble is, b.j's are a bit more of a risk though.


Look at the bright side... there's no need to spend big money on evening wear.
 
John



Hehehe very true, they don't seem that bothered about fancy jewelery either.

(in reply to Rover)
Profile   Post #: 144
RE: Dominance in other Countries? - 11/6/2008 8:13:08 AM   
MarcEsadrian


Posts: 852
Joined: 8/24/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rover

quote:

ORIGINAL: MarcEsadrian

I for the most part agree with you, John. But times do change, and sometimes we need clarity on matters that are vital to our freedoms, or others would just as nefariously exploit ambiguity in our government's framework for their own agendas.


Marc, there was (and is) nothing ambiguous about the rights granted in the Constitution.


By virtue of so much divisive dialog on the matter of the First Amendment and its intent by the Founders, I emphatically disagree. I believe it says one thing, you believe it says another. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" obviously has a different meaning to me than it does to you. As I've said previously, there has been plenty of noise about the issue, and Congress has had ample opportunity to address the matter with another Amendment. This has yet to happen, but I harbor great hope it does eventually, as I do believe church and state should exist in perfect separation. Until then, we'll be leaving it up to disenchanting public discourse, the agendas of our elected officials and the ordained Priests of the Law.



(in reply to Rover)
Profile   Post #: 145
RE: Dominance in other Countries? - 11/6/2008 8:44:09 AM   
Rover


Posts: 2634
Joined: 6/28/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MarcEsadrian

As I've said previously, there has been plenty of noise about the issue, and Congress has had ample opportunity to address the matter with another Amendment. This has yet to happen, but I harbor great hope it does eventually, as I do believe church and state should exist in perfect separation.


And that would be working within the clear and unambiguous framework that the Constitution sets forth for such matters.  And I would completely agree.

quote:


Until then, we'll be leaving it up to disenchanting public discourse, the agendas of our elected officials and the ordained Priests of the Law.


And if you accept this, then you have no basis for complaint when someone (George Bush, for example) were to interpret portions of the Constitution in a manner to which you do not agree.  You cannot have it both ways (ie: accepting interpretations that agree with your opinion, and denying those that do not) without becoming intellectually dishonest.  It's the process that is either correct or incorrect, and consistently so, whether you like the outcome or not.
 
John

_____________________________

"Man's mind stretched to a new idea never goes back to its original dimensions."

Sri da Avabhas

(in reply to MarcEsadrian)
Profile   Post #: 146
RE: Dominance in other Countries? - 11/6/2008 10:13:44 AM   
MarcEsadrian


Posts: 852
Joined: 8/24/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rover

quote:


Until then, we'll be leaving it up to disenchanting public discourse, the agendas of our elected officials and the ordained Priests of the Law.


And if you accept this, then you have no basis for complaint when someone (George Bush, for example) were to interpret portions of the Constitution in a manner to which you do not agree.

John


So say you. I just so happen to believe the way it's currently worded affords protection from religion. You will no doubt argue otherwise, and I will counter, ad nauseam.

That is not to say this hasn't been an interesting thread, however.




< Message edited by MarcEsadrian -- 11/6/2008 10:51:53 AM >

(in reply to Rover)
Profile   Post #: 147
RE: Dominance in other Countries? - 11/6/2008 2:56:24 PM   
Rover


Posts: 2634
Joined: 6/28/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MarcEsadrian

So say you. I just so happen to believe the way it's currently worded affords protection from religion. You will no doubt argue otherwise, and I will counter, ad nauseam.

That is not to say this hasn't been an interesting thread, however.


Perhaps I didn't explain myself very well, or perhaps you misunderstood me.  But I wasn't making a point about the outcome.  We can indeed debate that until the cows come home.  My point was about the process.

If the process for amending the Constitution is ignored, and we the people allow the Judiciary, Executive or Legislative branches to bypass the clear and unambitguous process which the Constitution sets forth, then we have no intellectually honest basis for argument when they do so.  Whether we consider the outcome right or wrong is immaterial.  By justifying the process for outcomes we personally agree with, we have justified the process for outcomes we disagree with.
 
Remember, each branch of government is co-equal.  So if one branch is allowed to unilaterally amend the Constitution, then all the branches have the power to do so.  The logical outcome is chaos, with competing versions of the Constitution that render *the* Constitution meaningless.
 
"The ends justify the means" is no way to run a country. 
 
John

_____________________________

"Man's mind stretched to a new idea never goes back to its original dimensions."

Sri da Avabhas

(in reply to MarcEsadrian)
Profile   Post #: 148
RE: Dominance in other Countries? - 11/6/2008 5:43:19 PM   
MarcEsadrian


Posts: 852
Joined: 8/24/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rover

quote:

ORIGINAL: MarcEsadrian

So say you. I just so happen to believe the way it's currently worded affords protection from religion. You will no doubt argue otherwise, and I will counter, ad nauseam.

That is not to say this hasn't been an interesting thread, however.


Perhaps I didn't explain myself very well, or perhaps you misunderstood me. But I wasn't making a point about the outcome. We can indeed debate that until the cows come home. My point was about the process.

If the process for amending the Constitution is ignored, and we the people allow the Judiciary, Executive or Legislative branches to bypass the clear and unambitguous process which the Constitution sets forth, then we have no intellectually honest basis for argument when they do so. Whether we consider the outcome right or wrong is immaterial. By justifying the process for outcomes we personally agree with, we have justified the process for outcomes we disagree with.

Remember, each branch of government is co-equal. So if one branch is allowed to unilaterally amend the Constitution, then all the branches have the power to do so. The logical outcome is chaos, with competing versions of the Constitution that render *the* Constitution meaningless.

"The ends justify the means" is no way to run a country.

John


As I said, I believe the way the First Amendment was interpreted is the way it was textually intended, deemed so by the Judicial Court, a branch of Government vested in interpreting the Constitution. I don't believe Everson or McCollum vs. Board of Education were ruled unfairly as it relates to the First Amendment. In all seriousness I don't see a conspiracy of ends justifies the means here; I see a legal and pragmatic protection against instances of state supported religion.

The Supreme Court will never go away, and Presidents will always have the power to elect its judges. That means the Genie, as you put it, will always be out of the bottle. That is our reality as I see it.

(in reply to Rover)
Profile   Post #: 149
RE: Dominance in other Countries? - 11/6/2008 6:11:38 PM   
Rover


Posts: 2634
Joined: 6/28/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MarcEsadrian

As I said, I believe the way the First Amendment was interpreted is the way it was textually intended, deemed so by the Judicial Court, a branch of Government vested in interpreting the Constitution.


Which way it was interpreted?  The way it was interpreted for the first 160 years after it was written, or the way it has been interpreted the past 60 years?  Both interpretations were by the same Judicial Court, a branch of the Government vested in interpreting (not writing) the Constitution.

quote:


I don't believe Everson or McCollum vs. Board of Education were ruled unfairly as it relates to the First Amendment.


Fair has nothing to do with Constitutional issues, or legal issues in general.  That is a common misconception as it relates to law. 

quote:


In all seriousness I don't see a conspiracy of ends justifies the means here; I see a legal and pragmatic protection against instances of state supported religion.


Indeed... protection against the establishment of a national church.  In fact, it is referred to as the "establishment clause" for precisely this reason.

quote:


The Supreme Court will never go away, and Presidents will always have the power to elect its judges. That means the Genie, as you put it, will always be out of the bottle. That is our reality as I see it.


Actually, you misunderstand the issue of politicizing the Court.  When Justices were allowed to remake law (referred to as "legislating from the bench") the process became political in precisely the same way that Congress is political.  That was not the intention of the Founding Fathers.
 
John

< Message edited by Rover -- 11/6/2008 6:13:35 PM >

_____________________________

"Man's mind stretched to a new idea never goes back to its original dimensions."

Sri da Avabhas

(in reply to MarcEsadrian)
Profile   Post #: 150
RE: Dominance in other Countries? - 11/6/2008 7:12:48 PM   
MarcEsadrian


Posts: 852
Joined: 8/24/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rover

Fair has nothing to do with Constitutional issues, or legal issues in general. That is a common misconception as it relates to law.


Fair as in judged correctly in regards to the First Amendment's purpose. My apologies for the lack of clarity.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rover

Actually, you misunderstand the issue of politicizing the Court. When Justices were allowed to remake law (referred to as "legislating from the bench") the process became political in precisely the same way that Congress is political. That was not the intention of the Founding Fathers.

John

I believe I'm stating the realities of our partisan and politicized system, despite its best intentions—a reality that I can't imagine has ever been free of politics in one form or another.

(in reply to Rover)
Profile   Post #: 151
RE: Dominance in other Countries? - 11/6/2008 7:40:10 PM   
Rover


Posts: 2634
Joined: 6/28/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MarcEsadrian

Fair as in judged correctly in regards to the First Amendment's purpose. My apologies for the lack of clarity.


Meaning that it was judged incorrectly during the 160 years that preceeded Justice Black?
 
quote:


I believe I'm stating the realities of our partisan and politicized system, despite its best intentions—a reality that I can't imagine has ever been free of politics in one form or another.


You're stating the realities of legislation from the bench.  Not of interpretation of the Constitution.  The former being a modern construct, and the latter being the original Constitutional structure.
 
Smart guys, those Founders.  They forsaw the problem we have today, and despite their best effort to prevent it, we have managed to muck it up nonetheless.
 
John

_____________________________

"Man's mind stretched to a new idea never goes back to its original dimensions."

Sri da Avabhas

(in reply to MarcEsadrian)
Profile   Post #: 152
RE: Dominance in other Countries? - 11/6/2008 8:19:41 PM   
MarcEsadrian


Posts: 852
Joined: 8/24/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rover
Meaning that it was judged incorrectly during the 160 years that preceeded Justice Black?


I didn't imply it was judged "incorrectly" prior in that statement. I would have to have good familiarity of all cases from 1787 to now in regards to the First Amendment to make that assumption.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rover
You're stating the realities of legislation from the bench. Not of interpretation of the Constitution.


It is my belief politics will inevitably be involved in either, and have been from the beginning. The system is fallible to human nature, and most likely always will be.

(in reply to Rover)
Profile   Post #: 153
RE: Dominance in other Countries? - 11/6/2008 8:41:27 PM   
Rover


Posts: 2634
Joined: 6/28/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MarcEsadrian


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rover
Meaning that it was judged incorrectly during the 160 years that preceeded Justice Black?


I didn't imply it was judged "incorrectly" prior in that statement. I would have to have good familiarity of all cases from 1787 to now in regards to the First Amendment to make that assumption.


Well that's a bit of a cop out, Marc.  The establishment clause was interpreted to mean one thing for 160 years, and to mean something entirely different for the past 60.  You don't need to be familiar with every case prior to Justice Black to render such an opinion.  Heck, until you read this thread you didn't even know who Justice Black was or his relationship to the First Amendment, yet that did not stop you from having an opinion on it. 
 
See, that's the Catch-22 you find yourself in.  To agree with the modern interpretation of the establishment clause is to disagree with it's original meaning, and interpretation for 160 years (ie: you must agree that it is not what the Founders intended).  And no matter how much you may like the modern interpretation, and wish it to be original intent, it is demonstrably not.
 
There's nothing wrong with prefering the modern interpretation, as you have every right to your opinion.  But it's intellectually dishonest to give your opinion the weight and appearance of original intent when that clearly is not the case.
 
John

_____________________________

"Man's mind stretched to a new idea never goes back to its original dimensions."

Sri da Avabhas

(in reply to MarcEsadrian)
Profile   Post #: 154
RE: Dominance in other Countries? - 11/6/2008 9:25:40 PM   
MarcEsadrian


Posts: 852
Joined: 8/24/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rover

Heck, until you read this thread you didn't even know who Justice Black was or his relationship to the First Amendment, yet that did not stop you from having an opinion on it. [...] See, that's the Catch-22 you find yourself in.


I don't see a "Catch-22" anywhere in my expressed sentiments. One thing I'm getting a little tired of are your constant assertions that my "side" of this dialog is fueled by ignorance. While I base most of my opinion about the First Amendment from the actual text itself and what history I know, the name of the Justice you mention is not and was not lost upon me. These discussions are supposed to be enjoyable and thought provoking, are they not?

I think this may be the point in the thread where I'll suggest we agree to disagree. We've certainly hijacked its intended subject for far too long.


(in reply to Rover)
Profile   Post #: 155
RE: Dominance in other Countries? - 11/7/2008 4:16:32 AM   
Rover


Posts: 2634
Joined: 6/28/2004
Status: offline 		I sense a punt coming on at the realization of your Catch-22.  Twice now you've manuevered around answering a direct question.
 
Does your agreement with the modern interpretation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment mean that you believe the original interpretation that was in effect for 160 years prior was/is incorrect?
 
The question is simple, direct, and unambiguous.  Just the kind you like.  I have no problem replying in the reverse, which is to say that I believe the modern interpretation of the establishment clause is not only incorrect, it is the fabrication of new Constitutional protections out of thin air, in contrast to the specified (also clear and unambiguous) process by which the Constitution may be amended.
 
But for you to be just as clear would necessitate rejection of the obvious original intent of the First Amendment, and to admit that the modern interpretation is a de facto amendment by judicial fiat.
 
Tough spot you're in there, Marc.  Let's see if the third time is a charm, and you answer.
 
John

_____________________________

"Man's mind stretched to a new idea never goes back to its original dimensions."

Sri da Avabhas

(in reply to MarcEsadrian)
Profile   Post #: 156
RE: Dominance in other Countries? - 11/7/2008 4:18:16 AM   
Rover


Posts: 2634
Joined: 6/28/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MarcEsadrian


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rover

Heck, until you read this thread you didn't even know who Justice Black was or his relationship to the First Amendment, yet that did not stop you from having an opinion on it. [...] See, that's the Catch-22 you find yourself in.


One thing I'm getting a little tired of are your constant assertions that my "side" of this dialog is fueled by ignorance.


Not your "side", Marc.  And not entirely by ignorance.  I believe the greater factor is wishful thinking.
 
John

_____________________________

"Man's mind stretched to a new idea never goes back to its original dimensions."

Sri da Avabhas

(in reply to MarcEsadrian)
Profile   Post #: 157
RE: Dominance in other Countries? - 11/7/2008 8:07:23 AM   
MarcEsadrian


Posts: 852
Joined: 8/24/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rover

Does your agreement with the modern interpretation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment mean that you believe the original interpretation that was in effect for 160 years prior was/is incorrect?




Not at all. I don't see any smoking gun to prove the so-called "modern" interpretation—not amendment or revision—is any different than what the First Amendment was intended to say since its inception, not only in its literal phrasing, but in the expressed words of the Founders. The majority of modern thinking on the matter thus far seems to agree, as do more current rulings of the Supreme Court. I don't know what else to say here.

(in reply to Rover)
Profile   Post #: 158
RE: Dominance in other Countries? - 11/7/2008 8:54:32 AM   
MsDonnaMia


Posts: 95
Joined: 6/30/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MarcEsadrian


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rover

Heck, until you read this thread you didn't even know who Justice Black was or his relationship to the First Amendment, yet that did not stop you from having an opinion on it. [...] See, that's the Catch-22 you find yourself in.


I don't see a "Catch-22" anywhere in my expressed sentiments. One thing I'm getting a little tired of are your constant assertions that my "side" of this dialog is fueled by ignorance. While I base most of my opinion about the First Amendment from the actual text itself and what history I know, the name of the Justice you mention is not and was not lost upon me. These discussions are supposed to be enjoyable and thought provoking, are they not?

I think this may be the point in the thread where I'll suggest we agree to disagree. We've certainly hijacked its intended subject for far too long.




lol

i do believe we are seeing a pattern here.

Person: blah blah blah
Rover: Wrong!
Person: blah blah blah
Rover: Wrong, me Grimlock KING



(in reply to MarcEsadrian)
Profile   Post #: 159
RE: Dominance in other Countries? - 11/7/2008 9:12:52 AM   
Rover


Posts: 2634
Joined: 6/28/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MarcEsadrian


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rover

Does your agreement with the modern interpretation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment mean that you believe the original interpretation that was in effect for 160 years prior was/is incorrect?




Not at all. I don't see any smoking gun to prove the so-called "modern" interpretation—not amendment or revision—is any different than what the First Amendment was intended to say since its inception, not only in its literal phrasing, but in the expressed words of the Founders. The majority of modern thinking on the matter thus far seems to agree, as do more current rulings of the Supreme Court. I don't know what else to say here.


This statement alone is proof positive that you do not know your history, nor understand the process by which the modern interpretation of the establishment clause was developed  and differs from the original.  Tire all you like about inferences of ignorance, this single paragaph is a mea culpa to the extreme.
 
You've made it clear that you want God out of governement, and out of the classroom (and to some degree, I would concur).  But how and when do you presume God got in there in the first place?  It was because 160 years of the establishment clause in the First Amendment allowed it to be so.  And the past 60 years has been a gradual chipping away at the original intent and interpretation.
 
You would have no complaint about God in government or the classroom today, if it was not allowed to exist from the outset.
 
John

_____________________________

"Man's mind stretched to a new idea never goes back to its original dimensions."

Sri da Avabhas

(in reply to MarcEsadrian)
Profile   Post #: 160
Page:   <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> RE: Dominance in other Countries? Page: <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109