The History of the Democrat Party

SmarterThanYou said:
is it that difficult to read 'shall not be infringed' as 'shall not be infringed'? or no warrant shall issue? unreasonable search and seizure?

if your philosophy is that you need to have courts and judges tell you what the constitution really means, then the public education system certainly did it's job with you.
Click to expand...

actually, it's my philosophy that when a judge is right about something, there is no reason to listen to some crazed libertarian make a fool of himself denying it.....and, unfortunately for you, I went to a parochial school.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
actually, it's my philosophy that when a judge is right about something, there is no reason to listen to some crazed libertarian make a fool of himself denying it.....and, unfortunately for you, I went to a parochial school.....
Click to expand...

so you're parochial teachings have led you to believe that the courts have been right since the dawn of our nation. slaughterhouse cases, dred scott, cruikshank, presser, kelo, roe v. wade?
 
WinterBorn said:
The above post by SM ignores a few details.

President Truman signed an executive order stating ""It is hereby declared to be the policy of the President that there shall be equality of treatment and opportunity for all persons in the armed services without regard to race, color, religion, or national origin."

President Kennedy sent 5,000 troops to Mississippi because of the violence and riots surrounding James Meredith's enrollment in the Univ of MS.

President John F. Kennedy in his civil rights speech of June 12, 1963, asked for legislation "giving all Americans the right to be served in facilities which are open to the public—hotels, restaurants, theaters, retail stores, and similar establishments," as well as "greater protection for the right to vote.". This was the beginning of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

When the bill went to the House of Respresentatives it was strengthened by Emmanuel Celler, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. (another democrat)

When the bill was threatened with being held in committee in the Senate, the Senate Majority Leader (a democrat) pulled some quick juggling to get it read a 2nd time and then voted on before it could be sent back into a committee. That one move prevented the senator from Mississippi from being able to hold up a vote on the bill.

President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Nation Voting Rights Act of 1965, making discriminatory practices at the polls illegal.

President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1968 making discrimination in the rental, sale, or financing of homes illegal.

The Civil Rights Restoration Act was a piece of legislation that required any recipients of federal funding must comply with civil rights laws in all areas. Not just those areas in which they received funding. President Reagan vetoed the bill, as he promised he would do. Congress overrode his veto and passed the law.

I doubt there is anyone who pursued the enforcement of civil rights and antidiscrimination laws as passionately as did Robert Kennedy.






SM, you mistakenly try to portray all democrats as the same as the southern democrats in the 1950s and 1960s. That is not the truth.
Click to expand...

And of course, the little dimbulb keeps forgetting the fact that the "Radical Republicans" have not existed in the GOP for many a decade.....as the "Dixiecrats" of the Democratic party are nothing more than a biligerent wedge.

SM is unique willfully ignorant neocon parrot with serious historic myopia (with a dash of subliminal racism to boot).
 
Mott the Hoople said:
What's so intellectually dishonest about your post is it's still the same southern racist you're talking about. Jesse Helms was a democrat who switched to being a Republican but he was always a southern conservative racist.

A pig with lipstick is still a pig.
Click to expand...

Bingo! And where are all the current "radical republicans" that this asshole keeps reminiscing about?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
What's so intellectually dishonest about your post is it's still the same southern racist you're talking about. Jesse Helms was a democrat who switched to being a Republican but he was always a southern conservative racist.

A pig with lipstick is still a pig.
Click to expand...
Helms became a Republican because he got over his xenophobia.
 
Taichiliberal said:
And of course, the little dimbulb keeps forgetting the fact that the "Radical Republicans" have not existed in the GOP for many a decade.....as the "Dixiecrats" of the Democratic party are nothing more than a biligerent wedge.

SM is unique willfully ignorant neocon parrot with serious historic myopia (with a dash of subliminal racism to boot).
Click to expand...
I don't have a racist bone in my body; prove otherwise. :pke:
 
WinterBorn said:
That the patriot act allows law enforcement to conduct secret searches, perform roving wiretaps, and gain access to highly personal medical, financial, mental health, and student records. All without warrants.



Here I was about to list the issues again. Go back and reread where I answered this the first time.
Click to expand...
All with probable cause of course.
 
Southern Man said:
All with probable cause of course.
Click to expand...

All without a warrant. So who decides its probable cause? The same people who want the warrant? And what about the searches of library databases. You know, the ones the librarians are not allowed to mention?

No, the Patriot Act is unconstitutional and you know it. That is why you danced around with the "who are they talking to?" question and then refused to try and justify the unconstitutional taps after the question was answered.
 
Southern Man said:
All with probable cause of course.
Click to expand...

When you asked what issues I had with the Patriot Act, I gave you specific examples.

"The portion that allows internet and phone taps without warrants?

The sections that allow the use of a "national security letter", which in addition to not requiring court approval, forbid the company being targetted from mentioning that the search was made.

The portions of the act that allow search warrants without showing probable cause."




The Patriot Act allows warrantless searches without documented probable cause.
 
WinterBorn said:
All without a warrant. So who decides its probable cause? The same people who want the warrant? And what about the searches of library databases. You know, the ones the librarians are not allowed to mention?

No, the Patriot Act is unconstitutional and you know it. That is why you danced around with the "who are they talking to?" question and then refused to try and justify the unconstitutional taps after the question was answered.
Click to expand...
Does Amendment IV require a warrant? Nope. :)
 
Southern Man said:
Does Amendment IV require a warrant? Nope. :)
Click to expand...

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The "no Warrants shall issue" has been interpreted time and time again as a requirement for a warrant. Why would that phrase be in the 4th amendment if warrants were not to be required?
 
Southern Man said:
Apparently its interpreted different now. :)
Click to expand...
It shouldn't be. We support the Constitution and many of us have sworn at one time or another to protect it, which IMO means to no longer allow "interpretation" to mean more than the clear statements of the document itself.

The whole idea behind much of Conservatism is looking at the document. learning and reading about the original intent, and displaying how this was supposed to create a free society where the individual had rights that cannot be given or taken at pleasure whether through direct laws or "interpreting" them away.

How often do we see conservative movements to restore the value and intent of the constitution?

We can't just ignore the portions that are inconvenient when somebody with an R next to their name makes "changes" to "interpretations" in order to justify abuses against those rights listed as inalienable, restricting the powers of the government to certain specific limitations cannot be removed by political affiliation or "interpretation."

To stand on one hand objecting to reinterpretation because you do not believe that it is a "living document" subject to change at whim by simply "reinterpreting" annoying limitations on one hand, then supporting "reinterpretation" because of affiliation is the very essence of hypocrisy. If you wish this to change there is an Amendment process to change it, you don't do it by simple "interpretation."
 
Damocles said:
It shouldn't be. We support the Constitution and many of us have sworn at one time or another to protect it, which IMO means to no longer allow "interpretation" to mean more than the clear statements of the document itself.

The whole idea behind much of Conservatism is looking at the document. learning and reading about the original intent, and displaying how this was supposed to create a free society where the individual had rights that cannot be given or taken at pleasure whether through direct laws or "interpreting" them away.

How often do we see conservative movements to restore the value and intent of the constitution?

We can't just ignore the portions that are inconvenient when somebody with an R next to their name makes "changes" to "interpretations" in order to justify abuses against those rights listed as inalienable, restricting the powers of the government to certain specific limitations cannot be removed by political affiliation or "interpretation."

To stand on one hand objecting to reinterpretation because you do not believe that it is a "living document" subject to change at whim by simply "reinterpreting" annoying limitations on one hand, then supporting "reinterpretation" because of affiliation is the very essence of hypocrisy. If you wish this to change there is an Amendment process to change it, you don't do it by simple "interpretation."
Click to expand...

When I look at the Constitution I look at the entire document, not just a little piece of it. Judges were never supposed to have as much power as they do, and a Warrant can therefore be issued by someone other than a judge.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top