barrelomonkeys wrote:Hey Ren, I'm feeling a bit emotional today. Sorry! Not feeling really up to this discussion at the moment. I'll get back to your questions about guns and why the founders of America felt it was of paramount importance to have this right included in the Constitution. I'll do healthcare,etc.. too. I'm just feeling a bit sapped right now.
Can you direct me to the thread at MAD that there is the discussion of the Constitution? I don't visit MAD often anymore. I went today (I suppose you saw that) and left wishing I'd never visited.
The thing about the constitution is that it is NEVER spoken for. It interpreted and different people (and Supreme Court Justices) look at that exact same Constitution and come to differing conclusions. THAT is the disagreement. It is never final. And I love that! :D
Who was mean to you on MAD? Do I need to beat someone up?
;)
I left realizing I'm a terribly, dirty, sinner. And I have never been cleansed. Rather depressing actually. Not them. Just me.
I left realizing I'm a terribly, dirty, sinner. And I have never been cleansed. Rather depressing actually. Not them. Just me.
Yeah - I saw what was going on in 'that thread' over on MA&D, but I was mainly involved in a different discussion and didn't really notice until the thread had already closed.
Well, I'd say: Judge not, lest ye be judged. Please don't beat yourself up too much :/
by the way, I am SHOCKED that anyone reads this thread other than Ren and I! That's funny. :D
Okay, I skimmed the thread and read the constitutional part. The constitution is how the Supreme Court Justices interpret the constitution. Sometimes the court is more to the left and at others more conservative. As justices change, and time moves on, the Constitution is interpreted differently even though there have been no changes to the document itself. You'll see different justices on the Supreme Court disagree over cases and there are usually dissenting opinions (which are FUN to read).
For instance there was at one point a court case Plessy v Ferguson where the Supreme Court ruled that children could be segregated in schools based on race. This happened in the late 1890's. The court read the 14th Amendment (the Equal Protection Clause) and interpreted that amendment as allowing segregation in the schools and in the public in general. This was known as the separate but equal ruling. Now fast forward through numerous other cases dealing with the Fourteenth Amendment and segregation and look to the 1950's. There is a different climate. Race relations are on the mind of people... there is a change in the social dialogue concerning race and segregation. The Supreme Court takes another case and interprets this same Fourteenth Amendment and says that "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal". This overruled earlier rulings and was a huge step in eventually equalizing opportunities for all Americans regardless of race (although I personally feel we still fall behind on that even today). This court case was Brown v. Board of Education.
So what does this mean for homosexuals?
Probably, at some point, the same thing it meant for earlier citizens that had unequal treatment under the highest document of the land.
Last edited by Guest on Mon Aug 06, 2007 1:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
You've got a lot of good constitution stories up your sleeve ;) Thanks again...
I probably lay this on the constitution too much. My disapproval should probably be squarely aimed at those who choose to 'interepret' the constituation in a way that betrays their lack of concern for the rights of others who simply aren't like 'them'...
You've got a lot of good constitution stories up your sleeve ;) Thanks again... I probably lay this on the constitution too much. My disapproval should probably be squarely aimed at those who choose to 'interepret' the constituation in a way that betrays their lack of concern for the rights of others who simply aren't like 'them'...
And thanks. I'm feeling much better today.
Cool. Glad to hear it.
Hey Ren, I took 2 honor Constitutional Law Courses.. I had to brief almost every single case. Both the majority and dissenting opinions. :O
I have lots of boring crap in my mind. ;)
This is why our elections are so frenzied where there is a possibility that the new President can place a new Justice on the Court (when another is close to retirement).
And yes, you're right. There are people that don't wish others to have the same rights that they themselves have under our constitution. But the track record for them having their way forever doesn't look too good.