I’m seriously asking.
The Supreme Court is not just a “clarification” entity. It is a co-equal branch of the government, equal by decree of the constitution with the executive (the President) and the legislative (the Congress). Democrats weren’t remotely happy by the Bush vs. Gore decision, and while its clear the court jury-rigged its decision applying to that case and only that case, the leader of our party clearly accepted the court’s findings. Yet right now the National Review is calling the decision in the Hamdan case “an outrage” while other cons are seriously seeking to impeach a justice they disagree with like Kennedy. I would note that this unhinged behavior is not unusual for the right, as impeaching judges they disagreed with was a big part of the Goldwater movement that started the GOP in this direction.
UPDATE: Mark Levin is also an idiot.
Where did you take Social Studies? At ACLU HQ?
The Supreme Court is not, nor was it ever meant to be a co – equal branch of the government.
And if there was a decree, I’d like to see it.
(That’s the cue for one of Frameone’s three part cut and paste jobs that doesn’t resolve the issue.)
impeaching judges they disagreed with was a big part of the Goldwater movement that started the GOP in this direction.
a) the Goldwater movement had NOTHING to do with impeaching judges
b)The Goldwater did NOT BEGIN the GOP’s move to the right.
You’ve made the same mistake about 6 times, about 6 different ways.
Read this and learn.
Actually, my take on it is that the Court did not say “you can’t do that,” but rather “you can’t do it that way, go back and do it right.” I back this up by noting that the Court didn’t order Guantanamo shut down immediately or take any other steps in that direction. Sounds more like a procedural matter than one of the policy being wrong.
Oh, and Oliver? It’s “Jerry-rigged,” not “jury-rigged.” I know that misuse fits your mischaracterization here, but it’s an old ethnic slur against Germans, dating back to World War I. You wouldn’t be engaging in hate speech here, would you?
J.
“Oh, and Oliver? It s Jerry-rigged, not jury-rigged. I know that misuse fits your mischaracterization here, but it s an old ethnic slur against Germans, dating back to World War I.”
Stuck on stupid, I tell ya’.
http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-jur1.htm
http://www.yaelf.com/aueFAQ/mifjrrybltjryrggd.shtml
Well, crud. That’s what I get for listening to people ranting and raving about how so many phrases are really “ethnic slurs” and taking them at their word without verifying things for myself. Just toss me in the paddy-wagon, then…
I apologize for that error, and hereby retract the closing tossed-off remark. I still stand by the main gist of my comment…
J.
I{I could swear I posted this already, but here it goes again}
Oliver, where did you learn Social Studies? At ACLU HQ?
The Supreme Court is not, nor was it ever meant to be a “co – equal branch of the government”. If there was a decree, I’d love to see it. (Cue frameone’s three part, 2000 word cut and paste of info that doesn’t address the issue.)
impeaching judges they disagreed with was a big part of the Goldwater movement that started the GOP in this direction.
1) Impeaching judges had NOTHING whatever to do with the “Goldwater movement.”
2) We’ve had this discussion about six times, and you’ve been wron for six different reasons. The Goldwater “movement” did not send the GOP to the right.
Read and learn. This time, there will be a quiz.
“That s what I get for listening to people ranting and raving …”
Oh classic, too classic. How often does this happen to you Jay? “Christians don’t engage in genital mutilation! I know it for a fact because someone who hates Muslims said so!” “Jerry rigged is hate speech because someone who hates liberals told me so!”
And Jay, remember when you wrote this:
Three things:
1) When can we expect your retraction now that the Supreme Court has ruled that detainees at Guantanamo are entitled to “(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.”
2) Would you care to link to that section of the Geneva Convention that specifically authorizes summary executions?
3) What kind of psychopath fantasizes about summary execution?
It s Jerry-rigged, not jury-rigged.
A “jury rig” is a hasty repair on a sailing ship.
The Oxford English Dictionary: “Hence, ‘jury’ is used in combination to designate other parts of a ship put together or contrived for temporary use, as ‘jury-rig,’ ‘jury-rigging,’ etc.”
An example of this usage is given from a ship’s log dated 1844, long before Germans were known as “jerries.”.
Humorous uses also included “jury-leg” for a peg-leg.
So you did censor my post. Splendid, Oliver.
Q: What kind of psychopath fantasizes about summary execution?
A: The kind of pissant coward who thinks it’s okay for someone else to suffer injustice as long as he thinks he’ll never have to face it himself.
You know, the kind of tough-writing, diaper-wetting blight on democracy that Ben Franklin is credited with warning us about (you know, “they who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security…” etc.).
Don’t you know, frame, it’s always the left’s fault when JT screws up. Just like it’s the lefts fault when the Republican majority Congress can’t pass a bill. And it’s the lefts fault when the Republican controlled press says something the administration disagrees with. And when JT has an argument with his partner? That’s the lefts fault.
I tell ya, we have some power!
Putting aside the lunacy of denying that the Constitution itself created the Judiciary as a co-equal partner along with the Legislative and the Executive branches to ensure a proper system of check and balances (until now, anyway), you have to love a post that flat out knows such a troll-tastic statement is going to get hammered with a “2000 word cut and paste” that “completely obliterates [Frank's] nonsense.”
…errr, I mean “that doesn’t address the issue.”
Yeah, that’s it.
In a letter to William C. Jarvis in 1820, Thomas Jefferson wrote:
The Federalist Papers and Marbury v. Madison:
The importance of Marbury v. Madison according to the State Department:
More on Marbury v. Madison from The United States Supreme Court Reference Shelf Volume 77, Number 5:
From the US Supreme Court webpage:
From Clinton v. Jones (95-1853), 520 U.S. 681 (1997):
How many words was that? How many more will it take before Frank realizes he’s an idiot? Ad idiot infinitum.
If there was a decree, I d love to see it.
Same goes for you, Blustering Bill.
What I said, and which I am I waiting for someone to dispute (not contradict) is that the Constitution nowhere states that any of the branches are equal, but, if I remember correctly, there is correspondence from the Founding Fathers that the Supreme Court is more like a “weak sister” than an equal partner.
I cannot find a reference to equal branches, but are you now contending that the SC has no jurisdiction over this case or what? It seems as if they had the right to do so under Article 3, Section 2, which states:
I do not pretend to be a legal scholar, however, I believe that the issue of treaties made by the US is one of the main the reasons the SC felt obliged to consider this in the first place. Furthermore, the ruling states:
What this ruling does do is slap down this administration’s argument that somehow the detainees are somehow immune from the Geneva Convention and the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), even if Congress passes specific legislation to deal with this.
More importantly, this ruling should raise a red flag both to members of Congress and this administration. The authorization to use military force did not give Bush power to ignore existing law and the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights. Rather than getting all hot and bothered, the Bush Administration had better get it’s act together regarding illegal NSA spying on American citizens else they find themselves in deeper trouble.
Bushwacked: You, as opposed to Bluto frameone, raise an interesting point.
Perhaps there is more than one question to be answered:
1) Are the Gitmo prisoners covered by the Geneva Conventions? I believe Justice Thomas’ dissent was a hearty “Hell, no!” I agree.
but the other question is
2) Is the military commission unconstitutional because The military commission at issue is not expressly authorized by any congressional Act”?
As to Question #2, I would thing that the President, acting as C – in – C, can interpret the UCMJ anyway he wants. After all, it’s his JAG, more or less.
As to the Congressional issue, I can only say that if a declaration of war is required to make those captured subject to military judgement, then Bush is wrong. But I think that the War Powers Act, and some other precedents are involved (I read the case names the other day, but I’ve forgotten them). I guess that’s why there was an argument.
Thanks for bringing your brain to the game.
frameone: As usual, you posted one of your colossal posts, and it didn’t refute my point.
I am well aware of Marbury v. Madison.
As you are so fund of braying, “DID YOU READ YOUR OWN POST, IDIOT?”
and
Now, IDIOT, what did I say?
So while you have demonstrated the existence and significance of Marbury v.Madison*, which all of us who have finished high school were aware of, here is what you have not done:
1) You did not demonstrate that the Founding Fathers thought of the Supreme Court as an equal branch of government. In fact, your prolix post indicated the oposite;
2) You did not demonstrate that the Supreme Court is an equal branch of government in your long – winded attempt to dazzle us with your ability to locate someone else’s knowledge of Supreme Court history; you merely indicated that it acquired additional power as a result of Marbury v Madison and, therefore,
3) You were unable to find the requested “decree” (i.e., Constitutional reference) that made the Supreme Court an equal partner with the other branches. No surprise, there — I knew it didn’t exist without the use of Google.
Better luck next time.
How many words was that?
According to my trusty Word 2003: 683
But thanks for playing.
* One simple link would have saved you all that trouble. But you just can’t avoid that narcissistic flair, eh, Bluto frameone?
It’s remarkable how dumb you are really. When you cited this passage, which I read and quoted above:
Did you not realize that the sentence just before it makes it clear this is imbalance was not what the Founders intended? It’s incredible to think that someone could be that stupid, but here we are. The sentence just before this one is as follows:
What do you think the author means by this “hoped for interplay,” Frank? You know, the one that did not develop immediately as intended by the Founders? Damn, you just have have be afflicted by some kind of a brain tumor or something, right? I mean seriously, tell me something so I can have some sympathy for you. Otherwise, really, you may be the dumbest man on the planet.
Frank,
You suggested that the Founding Fathers never intended the Supreme Court to be a co-equal branch of government simply because they never said it explicitly in the Constitutition. That simply is not true. I could ask you to find in the Constitution that section which explicitly states that the Supreme Court is NOT coequal. Or, hell, find me the specific phrase “balance of powers” or “separation of powers,” the basic principles of government upon which the Constitution was founded. So go ahead and find me the passage that declares Congress and the Exectuive branches co-equal but the Supreme Court beneath them. You won’t find it either.
The fact of the matter is that the Founding Fathers did indeed intend the Supreme Court to be a co-equal branch of government which is why Jefferson wrote in a letter quoted above:
The Federalist Papers also make it plain that, as I’m sure you know, the whole underlyng principle of the Constitution is the separation of powers and checks and balance. As Madison wrote in #47:
Tell me how exactly one establishes such a desired balance of powers if the powers shared between the three branches are not co-equal? It’s the foundation of the Constitution. But he goes on in Federalist #48:
The bottom line is that Marbury v. Madison set right what the early Congress had thrown out of balance. Your ignorance of US history is simply appalling and it’s clear that this is why you have such ignorant positions on current events.
You write:
As I’m sure you are aware, veteran that you are, the UCMJ allows convivted soldiers to appeal to civilian courts. It’s called a check on executive power. The military commissions set up by Bush do not allow such appeals for detainees thus vesting Bush with the unchecked power abhorred by the Founders:
So your ignorance of the founding principles of this country leads you to betray those principles now as we are supposedly fighting to defend American ideals.
I will add that while some of the detainees in Guantanamo may not be entitled to POW status but that does not that are not entitled to fair trials. They are as stated in the Geneva Convention. The Conventions do not create a category of people who fall outside all protection of the law, as the Bush administration has tried to argue. And let’s not forget that any Taliban fighter picked up on the battefield in Afghanistan is most definitely entitled to POW status as the Taliban was, at the time, the rulling government of Afghanistan and Afghanistan is a signatory to the Conventions.
You are a total fucking idiot.
I really don’t care what the author might have meant. You’re not asking me what I think he meant, because I know what you think he meant, and you don’t care what I think.
But notice the parsing:
Though the framers of the Constitution envisioned a system of checks and balances [this is clearly understood by just about everybody] whereby the three coequal branches [this is what he calls them, but this is not supported] of the federal government the legislative, executive, and judicial would rein in one another [this is elaborated in the paragraph following], thus preventing any single branch from exercising too much power, this hoped for interplay [This is not the same as "desired coequality". Although it is implied, it is neither definitely stated to be coequality, nor is it documented] did not develop immediately.
So you still haven’t proven a goddammed thing, Bluto frameone.
Once again, that flaming, raging narcissism {dispute the amazing Paul?!?} has left you undone.
Better think twice before you go off, eh, kid?
Aside to certain commenters (you know who you are): When I was tormented by some asshat for days about going to Australia, I finally went off, amd “offered him an opportunity” to escort me there himself, an offer he, of course, declined to accept; I was hectored, and still am hectored by Oliver’s Army, about reining in my anger, and how bad it was for me.
But here we have Alexcorrigan and frameone going off unprovoked on anyone who disagrees with them, with nary a peep from the left-wing choir. Any idea why that might be, hmmm?
I have a few — ye hypocrites!
“But here we have Alexcorrigan and frameone going off unprovoked on anyone who disagrees with them …”
Um no. We don’t disagree with you Frank. The facts disagree with you because you are stone cold wrong. The Founding Fathers intended Congress, the Executive and the Supreme Court to be three co-equal branches of government. Read the Federalist Papers, read any American history textbook.
You have been presented with multiple sources from the Founders themselves, history textbooks and court decisions themselves all of which uphold the idea that one of the principle concepts of the Constitution is the establishment three co-equal branches of government.
What have you presented in return by way of rebuttal? Nothing but hot air. You’ve ignored direct quotes from the Founders and the Federalist papers, you’ve ignored actual court interpretations and you’ve attacked the veracity of history texts.
You’re an idiot.
You’re noit turning it around like some 8 year old in a playground, you miscreant.
Why don’t you grow up, you douchebag?
You throw down impossibly long posts, and simply because your post is longer than the other guy’s, you think you can call him an idiot?
You’re an obnoxious jerk. If you were mouthing off with all this false bravado in front of real people, your attitude would have gotten you punched into a vegetative state years ago. You hide behind that friggin’ keyboard, with a totally undeserved aura of superiority, when you put your pants on one leg at a time, just like everyone else.
Two things you haven’t learned, apparently:
1) Bill Wilson said, “If you don’t get humility, life will give it to you.”
Your time is coming.
2) “Opinions are like assholes: everyone has one, and they all (and that means you) stink.”
I’ll not rehash the argument with you because you debate like a woman. If you lose on this point, you pretend the argument was about something else, and try to win on that point. Lose on that one, try another one. You argue like a woman, Bluto frameone.
Frank, the argument was about whether or not the Supreme Court is a co-equal branch of government. Your only argument that it is not is that its status in relation to the other branches is not explicitly laid out in the Constitution. That’s it. The same could be said about the relationship between any of the branches but it is without any question that the Founders intended all three branches to be equal in their relationship to each other. Each branch has a check on the other in equal relation. I have given you a number of historical sources to back up this assertion including direct quotations from the Founders themselves. To this you respond with invective. The fact remains: you’re wrong. Totally wrong.
And save the AA rap for your sponsor, Frank. I think it’s time for you to get to a meeting …
You’re too much Frank. As per your usual tactic you’ve dropped entirely your original assertion, after offering no counter evidence or linking to no authorities, in favor of pure invective and mental masturbation. Whenever you want to go back to defending your original point, by all means, be my guest. If you want to continue down your current path, however, well, it’s a little embrassing, man.
I wonder what Beans would say right now.
Let me give you a starting point:
Assuming you’re talking about projecting my feelings on to frameone, how do you know frameone isn’t projecting his feelings onto me? (And, of course, Dugger and Dr Pedro)
No cut and paste this time, pardner — you’re on your own.
So now we know how you got your name.
If you ever think of getting into the caring professions — don’t.
I can’t even begin to explain how wrong you are.
Beginning with the fact that I could be a Benedictine nun in Marseilles, and the fact that “projection” doesn’t mean, “I know you are, but what am I ?” you have (I’m being terribly charitable) a lot to learn before I could even explain how wrong you are.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
You’re getting boring, trying to justify yourself. And you dared to mention my use of “invective”? I’m surprised your roof didn’t cave in on you when you typed that.
Let me show why I think I’m right — because it is impossible to show you you are wrong. You just don’t allow it. (And don’t dare say you’ve been wrong before.)
It is notwithout any question that the Founders intended all three branches to be equal in their relationship to each other. You have misunderstood the meaning of “check”. In the 18th Century, “check” was a term used in backgammon when you prevented your opponent from going any further. Just as one MP can hold up a mile long convoy, so too can any agency with a limited amount of power “check” or restrain another branch. The original power assigned to the Supreme Court was, as I think we all know by now, not to render legal opinions on any case that it saw fit. Even Marbury v Madison didn’t give it that power. The “check” you’re citing was the point at which one Branch had to stop, and wait for another Branch to continue the activity. That’s why bills passed up through the Houses to the President, and why he can’t just brush the Bill off, or even summarily veto it. Likewise, the Supreme Court was not intended to pick and choose which legislation it was going to determine was or was not constitutional. It was supposed to referee interstate squabbles, and handle legal issues beyond the jurisdiction of the States. Decisions like Mapp v Ohio or Griswold v Connecticut would never have been imagined by the Founding Fathers, and modern Constitutional scholars are still debating the precedents for Roe v Wade.
Each branch does not have a check on the other in equal relation. Is a City Court equal to a City Council? Is a City Council equal to the District Attorney’s office? What you ” have given me a number of historical sources to back up” is the Separation of Powers, and the idea of checks and balances. But you have not provided any evidence — not any — of the assertion, not even by implication, that the Supreme Court was meant to be equal in power to the other two branches.
Either it exists, and you haven’t found it, or it doesn’t exist. The fact that the Supreme Court acts as a substitute for the Executive and / or the Legislative Branches, and people stand by and watch it happen, doesn’t mean that it was the Founders’ intention that that be the case.
If the Founders were obsessed with anything, it was the abuse of power. The idea that they would install paragraph after paragraph of rules carefully crafted to prevent power from accumulating in two Branches, but allow the Supreme Court to have the final say on every piece of legislation, and every executive order is utterly fantastic. Do you honestly believe that if there existed a concept in the minds of the Founding Fathers’ of a “living constitution” (I, of course, don’t) that the keeping of that trust would be put in the hands of nine men (six men, originally) elected for life?
You must think they were geniuses when they defined the Legislative and Executive Branches, and somehow became dullards when it came to design the Judicial Branch.
Now, let the name calling begin.
“The original power assigned to the Supreme Court was, as I think we all know by now, not to render legal opinions on any case that it saw fit. Even Marbury v Madison didn t give it that power.”
Here’s a classic example of your bullshit. Who said it Marbury v Madison gave the court any such power? I didn’t. I merely pointed out that it was landmark case because in its opinion the Court asserted its right to judicial review of Federal statutes in the cases that came before it. That’s it’s Constitutional check on the legislature.
“That s why bills passed up through the Houses to the President, and why he can t just brush the Bill off, or even summarily veto it.”
Oh hilarious. Ever heard of a signing statement, Frank, Bush’s favored response to legislation he has every intention of brushing off? You’re ignorance is simply astounding. But moving on …
Frank, the phrase “co-equal branches of government” does not mean that the Supreme Court can declare war or levy taxes or act in any way as a substitute for the other two branches. It means precisely that the three branches of government each have a means of checking the power of the other within the realms laid for them by the Constitution. The Supreme Court cannot write legislation but it does have the authority to judge the Constitutionality of a piece of legislation. To grant to Congress the ability to decide the Constitutionality of the laws it writes is to give judicial power to the legislature, a recipe for corruption. The same goes for the Executive.
In Federalist #49, Madison and Hamilton speak of “maintaining the constitutional equilibrium of the government.” The subject at hand is how to deal with “breaches of the Constitution” and how to rectify them. It was proposed that “whenever any two of the three branches of government shall concur in opinion, each by the voices of two thirds of their whole number, that a convention is necessary for altering the constitution, or CORRECTING BREACHES OF IT, a convention shall be called for the purpose.”
Hamilton and Madison were opposed to this idea. As they wrote:
The aim then was to discover a means in which the natural advantages of one branch — here Congress’s more direct and natural connection to the people — could not be used against the other two. Why? Because it would upset “the constitutional equilibrium of the government.”
The struggle always for the Founders was to maintain as much of an equilibrium between the three branches as possible through a series of checks and balances. Each branch has a chance to check the power of the other, this is only possible if there is an “equilibrium” between all three.
And as to why the phrase “co-equal”does not appear in the Constitution I can only direct you to the closing ofFederalist#48:
You can spin shit out your ass all you want but again you have yet to provide a link to any other authority oreven offer an interpretation of any other authoriy. Here we’re talking about the Constitution and the Supreme Court and what do you bring in by way of argument, the relaltionship between a city council and a city court. Nice one. What an idiot.
OK, frameone, you win. I am exhausted. Feel better?
“OK, frameone, you win. I am exhausted. Feel better?”
Hey Frank, when you’re wrong you’re wrong.
Frank_D Jul 3rd, 2006 at 2:51 pm
You argue like a woman, Bluto frameone.
WTF? You have issues, Frank.
Sure thing, Paul…
“Sure thing, Paul& ”
So begins Frank’s relentless struggle to have the last word on every thread, no matter that he was wrong all the way through. He. Must. Have. The. Last. Word. (We should have a contest to see how many more posts we can get out of him!)
I agree with Frank, the three branches of government aren’t co-equal.
I would say congress was meant to be #1 in actual power, the president number 2, and the supreme court number 3. The problem is equality or power has nothing to do with the entire argument. Nowhere does equality come into play, seperation of powers and checks and balances. Apples, Oranges, Grapes.
I prefer Rock Paper Scissors as an analogy myself. Each branch can, individually, do things that the others cannot do, but each can also, in its own special way, overpower the other… um, okay I realize I’m getting in on the tail end of an argument about constitutional law and the framers intent with an analogy I wrote on an 8th grade social studies paper about rock-scissors-paper of all things, so I’m just gonna stop typing now and get some sleep before Frank calls me stupid again and totally hurts my widdle feelings.
“I would say congress was meant to be #1 in actual power, the president number 2, and the supreme court number 3.”
You may agree with Frank but that doesn’t mean either of you are correct. The three branches of the government were designed to be co-equal in that each one can check the authority of the other. I really can’t believe we’re even having this discussion because, as Oliver points out, this is the most basic, fundamental principle on which the Constitution was founded. From:
U.S. Supreme Court
NEW YORK TIMES CO. v. UNITED STATES, 403 U.S. 713 (1971)
403 U.S. 713 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT No. 1873.
Argued June 26, 1971
Decided June 30, 1971 *
It is convenience and political considerations that drives the Right now to distort and disparage one of the most basic principles behind the Constitution.
Rex Mundane agrees with me, but takes time out to mock me. This of course proves that the idea that liberals are condescending ill -mannered elitists is all in my head.
Frameone, in his struggle to get the last word, tries to finesse me by saying that I always try to get the last word.
Apparently, you have googled “coequal branches” and by posting every reference to “coequal branches” that you can find, you can somehow rationalize that you have proved it is so.
BTW “coequal branches” = ‘about 14,600 hits’, one of which contains this sentence “As to the Times ridiculous allegation that governmental power was carefully balanced between three coequal branches …it just ain t so.”
And more:
Interesting, yes?
Now that we have seen how the magician does his trick, it is no longer entertaining.
Can I get an
Idiot.
Hysterical
Typical
??
The linkt to Federalist 51:
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa51.htm
I’ll add that the blogger you linked to is acting exactly according to the “convenience and political considerations of the moment” in attacking the basic foundations of our country. That’s what makes you morons so dangerous.
His argument is that Marbury v. Madison was itself a power grab that through the balance of government over to the Courts and this is must be undone by Congress. But to make his case he so seriously distorts the intent of Madison’s words in his quotation of Federalist #51 that one can only assume he was willfully trying to deceive. Naturally, he knows that would-be supporters such as Frank will never bother to look at the original document because he knows his supporters are mushbrained morons and he treats them accordingly.
Seriously, Frank, you really ought to have more respect for yourself to allow yourself to be treated like that.
More from #51 just before the quote above:
Frank, the passages I cite above are from Supreme Court decisions, history books, the Federalist Papers and a personal letter from Thomas Jefferson, all valid historical and legal reference. A cite an idiot with a blog: http://www.dansargis.org/column_files/2005_columns/sarg062305.htm
And no wonder you didn’t provide a link and no wonder your “source” edited the actual line from the Federalist Papers. The full context is below. On reading it you will find that Madison was actually arguing the exact opposite of what your “source” implies:
Frank, you’re a moron.
Rex: The analogy you were using was, I thought, an analogy for the inequality of branches.
If I was wrong about that, then I guess you didn’t agree with me.
I suppose, “… so I m just gonna stop typing now … before Frank calls me stupid again and totally hurts my widdle feelings,” was not typed with any negative intent toward me, is that it?
So after you type that, I repeat, after you type that, before I have said anything about you, then you say, that I have said something to offend you.
You weren’t being stupid, you were being a wiseass. I apologize for calling you a condescending elitist. You’re actually a preening, juvenile smartass.
…wait, I… agree… with Frank? I thought you were trying to argue that, well to use my superclever analogy again, that Paper doesnt have the constitutional right to cover rock, and must be able to be overruled by rock and scissors because its not supposed to have that power for fear that it may abuse its paper-ness or something.
Also, how does pointing out that youve called me stupid in the past in an attempt to hurt my feelings and are likely to do it again (as you have, in fact, indirectly, done) suggest that I’m a condescending elitist? If pointing out factual trends that make you seem a certain way suggests I’m condescending, or ill-mannered, or elitist… well damn, honestly I dont have a Then-statement to finish this with because theres nothing I could truthfully, reasonably say that wont offend you as much as objective truth seems to.
…you know I’m reminded of an argument I had with my father a few years ago.
And I remember thinking, “You just called me stupid for thinking you’ve called me stupid, how am I even supposed to be able to argue with that?” No idea why its occurred to me to share that just now…
Anyway, my Rock Scissors Paper point is that, while each of those things as an individual entity can perform different tasks, relative to each other they weild equal, well lets call it “trump” power I suppose. If I failed to make that clear in my sleepy buzz then I, as preening, juvenile smartass/wiseass, humbly apologize.
On a final note, if I say I’m logging off before you insult me, and then I log off, and then you do, in fact, insult me… um, what exactly was wrong about that on my part?
frameone: You can beat that dead horse until your hands are bloody.
Will it ever dawn on that equality is not mentioned as either desired or accomplished, and that you are reading into the document a meaning that is not found there.
Cool your jets.
Lose the image of pounding conservatives into the dust.
Let go of the need to defeat and humiliate your “enemies.”
There, now.
Better now?
OK
Breathe in through your nose.
Breathe out through your mouth, a trifle longer.
Repeat until calm.
I’ll be back later.
I’m sure this will take a while.
“Will it ever dawn on that equality is not mentioned as either desired or accomplished, and that you are reading into the document a meaning that is not found there.”
Frank, now tell me, do you admit that the only “authority” you’ve bothered to cite here in defense of your position willfully distorted the text he was quoting? Because if you can’t admit that then, well, there’s no point in arguing because you aren’t just stupid, you, as near as I can tell, also have some kind of serious mental disorder.
The structure of the Constitution and the intention of the Founders is plain: Three co-equal branches of government such that each branch has a check on the power of the other. I have cited Supreme Court cases, history books and the Founders themselves to back this up.
How you can attack liberals in the manner in which you do but not understand the most basic principles of this country’s Constitution it simply astonishing.
Rex
I got that point instantly about Rock Paper Scissors. I think it’s a great analogy. seperate but equal powers. makes perfect sense.
…but then again, I’m a juvenile wise-ass too, so what do I know?
BTW: How you get through a day without getting the snot beat out of you is simply astonishing.
Do you work at home?
frameone says: It’s right because I say it’s right, and the sources I cited back me up, not because they back me up, but because I say they back me up, and your argument makes no sense because I say it makes no sense, so obviously, for you to persist in believing you are right, despite the fact that I have not demonstrated that I am right, or that you are wrong, means you must be crazy*.
Has I gots it right, Massa?
* You may be right about one thing. I must have been crazy to get into any kind of debate, discussion, argument, or whatever with an anal – compulsive, obssessed narcissist like you.
Correction:
The Founders did NOT intend Congress to have more power than the President or the President more power than the Courts or the Courts more power than either of them.
Frank,
Once again, I don’t know how more plainly and clearly it can be laid out for. The Founders did intend Congress to have more power than the President or the President more power than the Courts or the Courts more power than either of them. To suggest as you and midderpidge have that the Founders intended to create some kind of a hierarchy of power across the three branches is simply nonsense.
If you want to make the case that I’m misinterpreting the sources I’ve cited, fine, by all means go for it. But you haven’t attempted to do that. You’ve simply dimissed Supreme Court decisions, the Federalist Papers, history books and the words of Thomas Jefferson. It’s especially absurd to assert that the Founders intended to make Congress the most powerful of all three branches without backing up your claim given the Founder’s strong feelings about the “excesses of democracy.” From an essay by DAVID N. MAYER, Professor of Law and History at Capital University in Columbus, Ohio:
http://users.law.capital.edu/dmayer/Blog/blogIndex.asp?entry=20050606.asp
The solution to the problem of “excess democracy” was a system of checks and balances in which all three branches of government were each co-equal in their ability to reign in the excesses of unconstitutional actions of the other.
Here is yet another authoritative source, quoting the Founders directly without distortion, that makes clear that our system of government was intended to be co-equal.
Let me go ahead and use my mind-reading abilities (patent pending) to formulate Frank’s response;
Nu-uhhhh!
How come 2 years ago we never heard anything about “activist judges” and our out-of-control judicial system? Hmmm.. was it because a few judges stood up and said they thought that gay people should be allowed to get married? All of a sudden, activist judges are the scourge of our nation, ready to topple everything it stands for in the name of their “liberal” agenda.
All because a a few gay people wanted to have equal rights! Apparently gay marriage is so threating that Republicans are willing to undermine the basic premise of our government in order to achieve their agenda.
Isn’t that what it comes down to, Frank?
It seems funny to me that when a judge advocates something that is construed by the right as “liberal”, they are “activist judges”, but when they advocate something that conservatives support (and the left does not), suddenly they are not activist anymore. It’s as if there is no such thing as a conservative activist judge.
Strange how that works…
[...] (via Oliver Willis, who also links to some other interesting links relating to the Hamdan decision) This entry was posted on Friday, July 7th, 2006 at 1:22 am and is filed under Idiocy, Lies, Law. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. Home» [...]
imsoexyl njprbmelg qrst cgpwzioys zqserp hrwtuznbc zmbx