What is Liberal?

no. the supreme court does not make laws. they can overturn them, however. and it's happened longer than decades. judicial review, the ability to overturn laws made by the legislature, was established in 1803 by marbury v. madison.it's been going for 200 years. that's what appellate courts do. you appeal to a higher court, re-try the case, and the court can then either confirm or overturn the opinion. a case has to get through a NUMBER of court before it reaches the supreme court. it is only in matters of inter-state cases, or at the descretion of the court, that cases go straight there. the supreme court is NOT leftist, either. before o'connor stepped down, they were actually evenly split. 4 justices tended to vote conservatively, 4 tended to vote liberally. o'connor was the swing vote, and often the one vote that mattered. now, the court will probably be a little right-leaning. do you agree? roe v. wade says that unless a compelling state interest can be shown, states do not have the jurisdiction to impose and enforce laws that impact a woman's privacy in such a manner. roe v. wade essentially protects the fourth and 14th amendments. it also says that as the term of the pregnancy increases, the state's interest in protecting the unborn life becomes increasingly valid (allowing laws against late-term abortion).what roe. v wade DOES NOT do is legalize abortion. it says that under certain conditions, laws against abortion are unconstitutional. how someone can argue that this itself is unconstitutional, i don't know. where does the constitution say that the government can impose and enforce overbroad laws over biology? the justices of the supreme court are specifically designed as a check and balance against the elected officials of the country. it's their job to occasionally go against the will of the people.

---

אָרַח

yet wrote that we should make laws regarding the establishment of religion, that church and state should be separate, and that religion should not be a requirement for presidency. really? cite some. what they meant by it was that the president should not be head of the national church. in england, the country they broke off of, the king was head of the anglican church. what the king said not only stood as national law, but the word of god as well. they were interested in creating something that was NOT a religious state, where power was given by divine mandate, but rather by the mandate of the people.am i misrepresenting that?

---

אָרַח

no, it's NOT mere interpretation. it's judical review. they review the laws. if the laws are wrong, they remove them. they are no more making laws than a president who vetos a law. yeah, 202 years ago. they don't redefine the constitution. it still says what it originally said, plus a few amendments, which are added by the LEGISLATIVE branch. what they do do is interpret how the constitution is to be applied to modern reality.for instance, there is nothing in the constitution about wire-taps and phone-taps. it simply wasn't in the original intent of the framers, was it? they didn't have telegraphs, let alone phones, let alone cell-phone. how do determine what is a constitutional invasion of privacy, and what is not? yes, it may well be murder. but it happens to take place within the privacy of someone's body. and the government does not have the right to interfere inside someone's body, unless a legitimate state interest can be shown (ie: probable cause for cavity searches).it's not leftist mentality. it's the fourth amendment. shall we do away with the bill of rights, because they don't fit your opinion that government should enforce your arguments on others? some of my personal views are. some of them are not.those, above, are not "views." you might be so radically right that everything anybody else says are just their opinions, even the facts, which you can bend to mean whatever you like. but it's not the case. judicial review is NOT the same as law making. declaring a law to be an invasion of privacy and overbroad in its definitions is NOT legalizing abortion. and the supreme court is NOT leftist right now. they sway between moderate left and moderate right. anyone who's ever taken a con law class knows this.the warren court and the burger court were activist courts. the rehnquinst court has been much more of a restraint court. it's conservative compared the supreme court from 1953-1986.roe v. wade was argued under the burger court, and activist court. NOT the current court, which expresses more conservative values. with the new appointment, the court is likely to lean more towards the philosophy of judicial restraint -- more conservative.i think we will never get a good definition of "liberal" if the bloody extreme right keeps accusign conservatives of being too liberal.

---

אָרַח

quite. the last person i remember speaking out against a video game was a clinton. i had this to write on my lj about it:

quote:

---

hillary clinton, conservative bimbo.

​

"Clinton, D-N.Y., is asking the Federal Trade Commission to probe how users of the game [GTA:SA] can access 'graphic pornographic and violent content' for the game from the Internet."

​

because graphic pornographic and violent content is clearly not all over the internet itself. oh, but, i forgot, the kinds that are poorly made out of polygons with badly drawn textures are the dangerous kinds.

---

what gets me is the conservative misrepresentation of the case. roe v. wade specifically allows for the illegality of late-term abortions. one of the essential reasons (though not the most important) that they overturned the law in question was the over-broadness of it. it didn't allow for things like rape cases, or the health of the mother under certain circumstances.what was razd's definition, btw? this is especially bad. everyone has a right to life -- no matter how shitty of a life it may be. heck, let 'em die of starvation, or of tetanus because they can afford health care. just don't kill 'em before the come out.it's kinda like the queen in "aliens." torch the eggs, she gets pissed as hell. but she doesn't care about the older ones. [/nerd]amen. politics in general, sucks.i went to a polysci class once, before i dropped it for being to early in the morning. the prof asked each person in the class what they thought politics was, and i said "well, it comes from the word 'poly' meaning 'many', and 'ticks' which are blood-sucking animals."i think that about sums up my opinions of both parties.

---

אָרַח

sorry, jar, but you're a dirty liberal now.

does lds count? This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 07-21-2005 01:20 PM

oceania has always been at war with eastasia. except for that bit where thomas jefferson says that it does? go back and look at the definition you just agreed with: they were interested in creating something that was not a religous state. the state and the religion were to be separated. the state would not condone one specific religion over any other, nor would it legislate what religions may or may not be practiced.the bit of confusion here is that almost no one in 18th century was atheist. they just didn't commonly exist. every founding father undoubtably believed in god. some were christians, others deists. but the state itself was not christian, nor deist. they had to allow for other religions: puritans, muslims, jews, catholics, anglicans, etc. or rather, practiced by members of our government. there is a difference here. and that difference is the separation of church and state -- abe lincoln may have prayed daily, and he may have signed the emancipation proclimation because his christian morality told him it was the right thing to do, but he never ran government like a church service, or defined a national religion.the us may be called a christian nation in that most of its citizens are (or at least were during this time) christians. but it is not a christian GOVERNMENT, a theocracy. see the difference?

---

אָרַח

then you're probably gonna need some personal lubricant:

---

אָרַח

no no, that's totally a choice nowadays. heck, you can even change your mind about it later.

---

אָרַח

sure they did. you were completely free to choose radical islamic fundamentalism under the taliban. and you know, women were free to do anythign they wanted, as long as it wasn't speaking or working, and they did it under a burkah.

---

אָרַח

uh, legislature votes FOR the people. that's how representative democracy works. they don't ask us first everytime they make a law.

---

אָרַח

no, actually i wasn't. i spent some time gathering some quotes -- but someone else posted them before i could. you seem to be ignoring those. they show rather clearly that the major founding fathers were not only not christians -- but anti-christian.but i did ignore the people v. ruggles.

quote:

---

People v. Ruggles did not cause prosecutors to seek out and prosecute blasphemers. But as evidenced in the 1821 constitutional convention, Kent's views were not accepted without controversy. Erastus Root moved for an amendment to eliminate the law created by the Ruggles case. AND KENT VOTED FOR IT! The amendment allowed that "It shall not be declared or adjudged that any particular religion to be the law of the land." Hence, if religion could not be declared a part of the common law, then blasphemy would cease to be a punishable offense.

​

Then twelve days later, Ambrose Spencer (the chief justice) moved to have Root's clause deleted, backed by RUFUS KING (one of the framers of the U.S. Constitution). Kent offered that his opinion did not declare Christianity to be the legal religion of the state. While on the surface this may have been true, in fact, it was the only religion that triggered the offense of blasphemy. Kent then changed his vote - and put in with Rufus King and Spencer and killed Root's amendment.

​

The case continued to cause controversy, but few convictions for blasphemy.

​

--Susan Batte

---

quote:

---

The People v. Ruggles (1811)

​

Though the constitution has discarded religious establishments, it does not forbid judicial cognisance of those offences against religion and morality which have no reference to any such establishment, or to any particular form of government, but are punishable because they strike at the root of moral obligation, and weaken the security of the social ties. The object of the 38th article of the constitution, was, to "guard against spiritual oppression and intolerance," by declaring that "the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, should for ever thereafter be allowed within this state, to all mankind." This declaration, (noble and magnanimous as it is, when duly understood,) never meant to withdraw religion in general, and with it the best sanctions of moral and social obligation from all consideration and notice of the law. It will be fully satisfied by a free and universal toleration, without any of the tests, disabilities, or discriminations, incident to a religious establishment.

---

the ruling of ruggles was that saying "jesus christ is a bastard, and his mother must have been a whore" was insulting and derogatory for no real purpose. it is not politically protected speech, aimed at a particular organization or government.

quote:

---

(continued)

​

Surely, then, we are bound to conclude, that wicked and malicious words, writings and actions which go to vilify those gospels, continue, as at common law, to be an offence against the public peace and safety.

---

see that? common law. not state.as for john jay? well, i don't know what to say about him, but he's pretty clearly not the majority voice in the founding fathers.

---

אָרַח

yes, i agree. i hope she doesn't get through -- a woman as the official candidate of a major party is almost bound to win if only for the novely factor. well, yeah.

---

אָרַח

alright, what did he mean by:

quote:

---

Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.

---

quote:

---

And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors.

---

---

אָרַח

and certainly the ones by the prominent foundign father, the ones you're ignoring, that blatantly and utterly contradict the whole idea. there WERE foundign father that believe we should be a christian nation. john jay was one of them.guess what? they lost the vote, as evidenced by the fact that the words "jesus christ" did not make it into the constitution as proposed. see the quotes you're ignoring. then don't bring up fatuous and silly arguments.

---

אָרַח