RE: The Immigration Ban (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

DesideriScuri -> RE: The Immigration Ban (2/15/2017 2:17:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
quote:

2/3 of the States had to ratify the Prohibition amendment.
2/3 of the States had to ratify the repeal of Prohibition amendment.
Somewhere in those 14 years, the viewpoints of the voters flipped, no?

The first resulted from a decades' long anti-saloon, anti-immigrant campaign.
The second resulted from the mandate of the one-sided elections of 1932.
We cannot ignore the events and experiences that were not available to the Founders or to legislators who successfully posted a new Amendment or a Court Opinion.
quote:

I think we're at loggerheads over the use of the word "feelings." I used (and continue to use it) as a synonym for "sentiment."
A guy at work recently told me he grew up in the South, and was quite prejudiced against blacks. He defined himself a racist back then. After he moved up North as a teen, he started to be around more black people, where he saw the error of his earlier prejudice. He's no longer a racist. He's dating a black woman, even. I think you might agree that his "feelings" towards black folks changed, no? While this is just an anecdote, it does demonstrate my usage of "feelings."

I will accept "sentiment" if you will accept that intervening events, even inventions change sentiment. But, it is not only sentiment that is changed. Social structure and power also change. Your work friend underwent a social change, did he not?


That's exactly what I'm saying. His feelings (sentiment) towards people of color has changed because his social framework through which he views people has changed.

quote:

The invention of the contraceptive pill had a long term impact on structure and power in our society. The Court found in Griswold v. Connecticut, unmarried couples were entitled to privacy (not mentioned explicitly in the Constitution, but inferred from the Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments) This led to the permissability of abortions, as well as the striking of miscegenation and sodomy laws.
quote:

If it's unConstitutional now, it's always going to be unConstitutional, regardless of how people's sentiments change.

Well, we want our Laws to be Constitutional. The Constitution provides protections to us. However, that begs the question: by whose interpretation? It seems you would keep us in the straight jacket of the Founders' musings.


By who's interpretation? That's the problem, right there, that I've been trying to get you to understand. The Constitution shouldn't be changeable simply because someone else interprets it differently. We have ways to know what was meant when it was written. It's not really all that necessary to "interpret" it one way or another. That's how we get overly expansive government and more tyranny than most are willing to quietly accept.



tj444 -> RE: The Immigration Ban (2/15/2017 3:51:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

I am waiting to see how this unfolds, considering the following the fact that TSA employees do not have the necessary security clearance to examine any Federal Agency issued electronic devices simply because they may have classified material on the device.

Procedure dictates that a representative of the issuing agency be present when any electronic device owned and issued by that agency is examined by anyone outside the agency to prevent data being copied.

This applies to all Federal, state and local law enforcement agencies.

Add to that they need more than just "Random Search" as a cause to want to look at the damn thing in the first place.

Bikkannavar could have been a real ass and told the guy that yeah, he will give him the pin, just as soon as a security officer from NASA arrived to supervise the examination.

Now that would have been funny as hell to watch, since the officer would have had to make the request through his supervisor, who would then have to make a nice phone call, and everyone would have had to wait for the security officer to arrive, and as soon as that Security guy found out it was for nothing more than a 'random search,' the shit would have truly hit the fan.


He didnt know the rules and how can anyone be sure of the fucking rules anymore? rules can so easily be changed with the swipe of a pen on an EO (or whatever).. You cant keep up with them and there are so many laws people arent aware of, even lawyers dont know it all either.. 70% of the American population live within 100 miles of a border or coastline where the INS/Homeland Security can set up a check point, stop you and question you/ask for your papers, intimidate you and threaten you.. And they are very good at intimidation & pressuring people.. the TSA are that way too.. and now they have stepped over the border into Canada.. as a Canadian, this is fucking scary.. These assholes will just keep pushing for more and more authority, its become a Police State.. It used to be easy to cross the border, now you need legal advice before you cross & your lawyer on speed-dial..

"Pre-clearance bill would give U.S. border agents in Canada new powers

U.S. border guards would get new powers to question, search and even detain Canadian citizens on Canadian soil under a bill proposed by the Liberal government.

"A Canadian going to the U.S. through a pre-clearance area [on Canadian soil] can say: 'I don't like the way [an interview is] going and I've chosen not to visit your country.' And they can just turn around and walk out.

"Under the new proposed bill, they wouldn't be able to walk out. They can be held and forced to answer questions, first to identify themselves, which is not so offensive, but secondly, to explain the reasons for leaving, and to explain their reasons for wanting to withdraw," said Greene, who is a former national chair of the Canadian Bar Association's citizenship and immigration section.

Howard Greenberg, a Toronto immigration lawyer who has chaired the immigration law committees at the Canadian Bar Association and the International Bar Association, says the law raises the prospect of a Canadian being arrested simply for deciding he or she has had enough with a certain line of questioning.

"At some point, it may change from a situation where you're simply responding to a question, to a situation where you're failing to respond to a direction of an officer. So the ambiguity is somewhat dangerous for the traveller.""

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/pre-clearance-border-canada-us-1.3976123




vincentML -> RE: The Immigration Ban (2/15/2017 6:55:02 PM)

quote:

That's exactly what I'm saying. His feelings (sentiment) towards people of color has changed because his social framework through which he views people has changed.

Then, we agree on the importance of the social framework. Good.

quote:

The Constitution shouldn't be changeable simply because someone else interprets it differently. We have ways to know what was meant when it was written. It's not really all that necessary to "interpret" it one way or another.


The Preamble states . . . .

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

How shall we read: "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" without interpreting what Liberty means to us?



WickedsDesire -> RE: The Immigration Ban (2/15/2017 11:10:27 PM)

I have discussed the 2/3 (66%) also the 60% and also the simple majority - you are not talking about comrade trumps hilly bllly nominee to scrotus are some of you - please do :)

Roe v Quale
cake v muffin
waffle v malarkey



DesideriScuri -> RE: The Immigration Ban (2/16/2017 7:10:58 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
quote:

That's exactly what I'm saying. His feelings (sentiment) towards people of color has changed because his social framework through which he views people has changed.

Then, we agree on the importance of the social framework. Good.


Not exactly, unless we agree that the US Constitution can not be changed because of a change in the social framework.

quote:

quote:

The Constitution shouldn't be changeable simply because someone else interprets it differently. We have ways to know what was meant when it was written. It's not really all that necessary to "interpret" it one way or another.

The Preamble states . . . .
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
How shall we read: "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" without interpreting what Liberty means to us?


Considering the preamble doesn't carry force of law, it's specific interpretation isn't quite as important. However, since we didn't write the preamble, but a bunch of men over 200 years ago did, perhaps we interpret "Liberty" to mean what it would have meant to them?



thompsonx -> RE: The Immigration Ban (2/16/2017 7:40:18 AM)


ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri


Considering the preamble doesn't carry force of law,


Jesus you are phoquing stupid.



vincentML -> RE: The Immigration Ban (2/16/2017 11:47:25 AM)

quote:

Not exactly, unless we agree that the US Constitution can not be changed because of a change in the social framework.

[:)] It need not be changed because of a change of social framework but the social change may bring to light an unenumerated but fundamental "right." Such was the argument made for the right to privacy, which is not enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Is privacy a "new right?" or is it fundamental to the governed and did it arise to view through the imperatives of a unique social change as was argued against the contraceptive ban in Griswold?

The Ninth Amendment seems to give us common ground in our debate, don't you think?

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

HERE is a pretty good discussion of Madison's thinking on it.

Let me know if we are not in agreement here. I would say my position has shifted somewhat. But, I still retain the need for proper interpretation arising out of innovative and/or disruptive social invention.



vincentML -> RE: The Immigration Ban (2/16/2017 11:58:37 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: WickedsDesire

I have discussed the 2/3 (66%) also the 60% and also the simple majority - you are not talking about comrade trumps hilly bllly nominee to scrotus are some of you - please do :)

Roe v Quale
cake v muffin
waffle v malarkey

Wicked (I appreciate your use of color[;)])

I would withhold judgment on the "hilly billy" at this point. The Democrats are more upset by the lack of hearing given to their candidate in 2016 than they are about the replacement fellow.

The Senate's 60% cloture rule is retained specifically and only for voting on the appointment of any new Supreme Court Justice. Otherwise, the Minority has been left with its naked, helpless arse sticking in the air.



DesideriScuri -> RE: The Immigration Ban (2/16/2017 2:05:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
quote:

Not exactly, unless we agree that the US Constitution can not be changed because of a change in the social framework.

[:)] It need not be changed because of a change of social framework but the social change may bring to light an unenumerated but fundamental "right." Such was the argument made for the right to privacy, which is not enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Is privacy a "new right?" or is it fundamental to the governed and did it arise to view through the imperatives of a unique social change as was argued against the contraceptive ban in Griswold?
The Ninth Amendment seems to give us common ground in our debate, don't you think?
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
HERE is a pretty good discussion of Madison's thinking on it.
Let me know if we are not in agreement here. I would say my position has shifted somewhat. But, I still retain the need for proper interpretation arising out of innovative and/or disruptive social invention.


Allow me to rephrase my statement you quoted to better elucidate my intent"

    Not exactly, unless we agree that the US Constitution can not be changed because of through a change in the social framework.


I hope that makes my point clearer.

The US Constitution was supposed to be a compact through which government was granted limited authorities by the people.

http://www.billofrightsinstitute.org/founding-documents/bill-of-rights/ (emphasis added)
    quote:

    One of the many points of contention between Federalists and Anti-Federalists was the Constitution’s lack of a bill of rights that would place specific limits on government power. Federalists argued that the Constitution did not need a bill of rights, because the people and the states kept any powers not given to the federal government. Anti-Federalists held that a bill of rights was necessary to safeguard individual liberty.
    <snip>
    The Bill of Rights is a list of limits on government power. For example, what the Founders saw as the natural right of individuals to speak and worship freely was protected by the First Amendment’s prohibitions on Congress from making laws establishing a religion or abridging freedom of speech. For another example, the natural right to be free from unreasonable government intrusion in one’s home was safeguarded by the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirements.


What Madison was concerned about (which led to the 9th Amendment) was that including specific rights would imply that rights not specified weren't held by the people. The Bill of Rights was more to placate the Anti-Federalists and the people than to provide any rights. For example, since Congress wasn't granted the authority to establish a religion, there, strictly speaking, was no danger of the Federal Government infringing on one's natural right to worship freely.

While, strictly speaking, Madison was correct. But, as we have all seen, government has to be put in check against it's continual outward pressure to free it from it's shackles. I daresay the Anti-Federalists were more right than they were wrong in their arguments against the US Constitution, as it was written and ratified.



vincentML -> RE: The Immigration Ban (2/17/2017 4:23:43 AM)

quote:

While, strictly speaking, Madison was correct. But, as we have all seen, government has to be put in check against it's continual outward pressure to free it from it's shackles. I daresay the Anti-Federalists were more right than they were wrong in their arguments against the US Constitution, as it was written and ratified.

I agree, history has demonstrated that the anti-federalists had made a sound case. Police interrogators had long used brutal (third degree) methods for obtaining confessions from suspected persons before Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 (1964), which found that the Sixth Amendment required the assistance of counsel during interrogation although previously the interpretation had been counsel was mandated only at the start of judicial proceedings, and was formalized in police interrogation procedure by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)

The discovery of these Rights was prompted by the emergence in the 1960s of a legal aid movement for indigent defendants, which I would argue comfortably had its genesis in the arrests of street protestors for Black Civil Rights in that era.

It is problematic to contend these unnuremated rights would have been brought to light had the Federalists prevailed in their conviction that the Bill of Rights was not necessary.

So, here we have rights which were exposed by the spotlight of social events. Your argument that the Constitution cannot be changed by new social frameworks may be true de jure but I find it ticky tacky because it is changed de facto by the trail of Case Law which arises from social change.

In that respect we disagree but I think our positions are pretty close.




Musicmystery -> RE: The Immigration Ban (2/17/2017 8:43:33 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
quote:

That's exactly what I'm saying. His feelings (sentiment) towards people of color has changed because his social framework through which he views people has changed.

Then, we agree on the importance of the social framework. Good.


Not exactly, unless we agree that the US Constitution can not be changed because of a change in the social framework.

quote:

quote:

The Constitution shouldn't be changeable simply because someone else interprets it differently. We have ways to know what was meant when it was written. It's not really all that necessary to "interpret" it one way or another.

The Preamble states . . . .
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
How shall we read: "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" without interpreting what Liberty means to us?


Considering the preamble doesn't carry force of law, it's specific interpretation isn't quite as important. However, since we didn't write the preamble, but a bunch of men over 200 years ago did, perhaps we interpret "Liberty" to mean what it would have meant to them?


Well, if you were correct about social framework, slavery would still be legal.

It can and does change, and even has a mechanism built in to accomplish that.



vincentML -> RE: The Immigration Ban (2/17/2017 10:35:42 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
quote:

That's exactly what I'm saying. His feelings (sentiment) towards people of color has changed because his social framework through which he views people has changed.

Then, we agree on the importance of the social framework. Good.


Not exactly, unless we agree that the US Constitution can not be changed because of a change in the social framework.

quote:

quote:

The Constitution shouldn't be changeable simply because someone else interprets it differently. We have ways to know what was meant when it was written. It's not really all that necessary to "interpret" it one way or another.

The Preamble states . . . .
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
How shall we read: "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" without interpreting what Liberty means to us?


Considering the preamble doesn't carry force of law, it's specific interpretation isn't quite as important. However, since we didn't write the preamble, but a bunch of men over 200 years ago did, perhaps we interpret "Liberty" to mean what it would have meant to them?


Well, if you were correct about social framework, slavery would still be legal.

It can and does change, and even has a mechanism built in to accomplish that.

The 13th A changed the Constitution, freeing the slaves. So, that was done in a way prescribed by the instrument itself. DS seems concerned about changing the meaning of the Constitution by stare dices. I think our contention has been whether the original intended meanings should be changed by Court Opinion. I offered the compromise that Opinion may find "un-numerated" or implicit but unstated rights.



DesideriScuri -> RE: The Immigration Ban (2/19/2017 3:11:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
quote:

While, strictly speaking, Madison was correct. But, as we have all seen, government has to be put in check against it's continual outward pressure to free it from it's shackles. I daresay the Anti-Federalists were more right than they were wrong in their arguments against the US Constitution, as it was written and ratified.

I agree, history has demonstrated that the anti-federalists had made a sound case. Police interrogators had long used brutal (third degree) methods for obtaining confessions from suspected persons before Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 (1964), which found that the Sixth Amendment required the assistance of counsel during interrogation although previously the interpretation had been counsel was mandated only at the start of judicial proceedings, and was formalized in police interrogation procedure by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
The discovery of these Rights was prompted by the emergence in the 1960s of a legal aid movement for indigent defendants, which I would argue comfortably had its genesis in the arrests of street protestors for Black Civil Rights in that era.
It is problematic to contend these unnuremated rights would have been brought to light had the Federalists prevailed in their conviction that the Bill of Rights was not necessary.
So, here we have rights which were exposed by the spotlight of social events. Your argument that the Constitution cannot be changed by new social frameworks may be true de jure but I find it ticky tacky because it is changed de facto by the trail of Case Law which arises from social change.
In that respect we disagree but I think our positions are pretty close.


I'm sure we still disagree on a lot of stuff regarding the Constitution; how it's interpreted, and how it's applied. In your example, case law didn't change the Constitution.

Reinterpreting the words and phrases of the Constitution in a way that is opposite the intention of the Framers, is still not a valid way to change the Constitution, imo.



mnottertail -> RE: The Immigration Ban (2/19/2017 3:14:20 PM)

Ohh, that standing army shit is gonna knock any nutsucker off his pegs from the get go. Right behind that the notion that the constitution was a forever blueprint. That fucker wore out 20 years after the ink was dry.



DesideriScuri -> RE: The Immigration Ban (2/19/2017 3:15:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
quote:

That's exactly what I'm saying. His feelings (sentiment) towards people of color has changed because his social framework through which he views people has changed.

Then, we agree on the importance of the social framework. Good.

Not exactly, unless we agree that the US Constitution can not be changed because of a change in the social framework.
quote:

quote:

The Constitution shouldn't be changeable simply because someone else interprets it differently. We have ways to know what was meant when it was written. It's not really all that necessary to "interpret" it one way or another.

The Preamble states . . . .
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
How shall we read: "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" without interpreting what Liberty means to us?

Considering the preamble doesn't carry force of law, it's specific interpretation isn't quite as important. However, since we didn't write the preamble, but a bunch of men over 200 years ago did, perhaps we interpret "Liberty" to mean what it would have meant to them?

Well, if you were correct about social framework, slavery would still be legal.
It can and does change, and even has a mechanism built in to accomplish that.


Bullshit.

That would mean that slaves (regardless of race/ethnicity) weren't human. That's the only way that they could have been unequal. And, yes, in some people's eyes, slaves were subhuman. Even today, blacks are considered by some as subhuman.

I've said it before, that slavery in the US was a terrible thing, and a black mark on our history.



mnottertail -> RE: The Immigration Ban (2/19/2017 3:16:45 PM)

But that was the constitution,our founding document.



vincentML -> RE: The Immigration Ban (2/19/2017 5:16:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
quote:

While, strictly speaking, Madison was correct. But, as we have all seen, government has to be put in check against it's continual outward pressure to free it from it's shackles. I daresay the Anti-Federalists were more right than they were wrong in their arguments against the US Constitution, as it was written and ratified.

I agree, history has demonstrated that the anti-federalists had made a sound case. Police interrogators had long used brutal (third degree) methods for obtaining confessions from suspected persons before Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 (1964), which found that the Sixth Amendment required the assistance of counsel during interrogation although previously the interpretation had been counsel was mandated only at the start of judicial proceedings, and was formalized in police interrogation procedure by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
The discovery of these Rights was prompted by the emergence in the 1960s of a legal aid movement for indigent defendants, which I would argue comfortably had its genesis in the arrests of street protestors for Black Civil Rights in that era.
It is problematic to contend these unnuremated rights would have been brought to light had the Federalists prevailed in their conviction that the Bill of Rights was not necessary.
So, here we have rights which were exposed by the spotlight of social events. Your argument that the Constitution cannot be changed by new social frameworks may be true de jure but I find it ticky tacky because it is changed de facto by the trail of Case Law which arises from social change.
In that respect we disagree but I think our positions are pretty close.


I'm sure we still disagree on a lot of stuff regarding the Constitution; how it's interpreted, and how it's applied. In your example, case law didn't change the Constitution.

Reinterpreting the words and phrases of the Constitution in a way that is opposite the intention of the Framers, is still not a valid way to change the Constitution, imo.


However, it is an historic practice. By what imaginable process could it be changed?



DesideriScuri -> RE: The Immigration Ban (2/20/2017 5:04:07 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
However, it is an historic practice. By what imaginable process could it be changed?


Via Amendment.



Musicmystery -> RE: The Immigration Ban (2/20/2017 5:29:38 AM)

AND if you finally stumble across the point I was making that you dismissed as bullshit.



thompsonx -> RE: The Immigration Ban (2/20/2017 6:58:51 AM)


ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri


By who's interpretation?

You seem to interpret yours as being the "one true way". Did someone die and make you god?


That's the problem, right there, that I've been trying to get you to understand. The Constitution shouldn't be changeable simply because someone else interprets it differently.


You do not seem to have any problem interpreting it differently than the founders. Which would make you appear to be arguing out of both sides of your mouth.

We have ways to know what was meant when it was written. It's not really all that necessary to "interpret" it one way or another.


The anti-federalist papers and the correspondence of those who wrote them clearly point to the "right to keep and bear arms" as a necessary condition for slavery. Without guns what would encourage a slave to show up for work?

That's how we get overly expansive government and more tyranny than most are willing to quietly accept.

You never seem able to explane just which things this rhetorical term "expansive government and tyranny" actually encompas.
Is it the requirement that stairways must have hand rails? Is it the requirement that your car not poison those of us who breath air? Is it the granting of personhood to corporations?
Why is that? Is it because you enjoy talking out of your ass and using platitudes? My best guess is that:
Jesus you are phoquing stupid



Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625