Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill Harmond who wrote (139980)	2/28/2002 5:08:21 PM
From: craig crawford	Respond to of 164684

>> That pretty-much says it. << says what? says to me that lincoln warned us 140 years ago to be wary of the type of usurpist judicial activism that we are subjected to today. it's a shame more people haven't taken heed of that warning. >> The Constitution is god, no way around it << what a ridiculous thing to say! first of all, our founding fathers clearly disagreed with you. the declaration states: "...that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator* with certain unalienable Rights,"* thomas jefferson and the signers of the declaration stated that our rights come from God, our "Creator" -- not by the constitution or the bill of rights. follow the logic here. if we didn't gain rights as free people until the constitution or the bill of rights were ratified, by what right did our forefathers have claim to declare themselves not subject to the authority of the british crown? none! the revolutionary war was fought before the continental congress met to form the constitution. if "the constitution is god", then we have no right to question it or defy it, correct? if you believe in God, do you think we have the right to defy the authority of God? yet what do we find written in the declaration? "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it" so you see, the constitution is not God. we don't have the right to alter or abolish God's authority, but our founders believed that we do have the right -- in fact the responsibility -- to abolish "any Form of Government" (including ours) that seeks to destroy our God-given rights. >> The US government itself is beautifully balanced like the human personality << only if each branch exercises its duty to uphold, protect, and defend the constitution. a common misconception exists in this country by which people believe that it is the role of congress to enact law, the executive branch to enforce the law, and the judicial branch interprets the law. that is only partially correct. in truth, it is the responsibility of ALL three branches to interpret the constitution, not just the judicial branch. in fact congress and the president must take an oath whereby they swear to uphold and defend the constitution. how can you swear to protect, uphold and defend the constitution without interpreting it? yet what do we see these days? congress and the president abrogating the responsibilities they agreed upon when they took the oath of office. i'll give you an example. take campaign finance reform. senator mccain has readily admitted that parts of his bill may be unconstitutional. others in congress have agreed. yet what is their answer to people questioning the bill? something to the effect of, "oh the courts may declare some parts unconstitutional but let's not let that stop us from passing historic legislation to protect the people, blah, blah, etc." recently the public, the president, and members of congress seem to have resigned ourselves to the fact that we must always look to the supreme court to decide matters of constitutionality. BULL CORN. the president and the congress have a DUTY to uphold, defend, and protect the constitution. that does NOT mean that we should just send all questionable matters over to the supreme court to decide and then take their decision as the final word. if the president or congress feel that the supreme court is not properly upholding the constitution they have an obligation to do everything in their power to restore the constitution to its rightful place and defend it to the full extent of their power. that is how the three branches should check each other. now of course to do that would rock the boat and might not be very politically expedient, now would it? that is why we need someone with the intellectual capacity of clinton--but the integrity and moral character of bush, so they can use the bully pulpit to make their case to the american people.

To: Bill Harmond who wrote (139980)	4/21/2002 8:17:01 AM
From: craig crawford	Respond to of 164684

Pandering and placating: The path to moral suicide worldnetdaily.com But, obviously, the doctrine that sexual self-control is impossible makes efforts to modify promiscuous behavior ridiculous. If sexual behavior is not obedient to moral resolution, then urging "safe sex" or abstinence are alike absurd, making no more sense than urging people to stop desiring food when they are hungry. But a theory that makes the notion of self-restraint absurd is indistinguishable from a justification of promiscuity. In fact, it is a justification for the cheerful toleration of the practice of any sexual behavior whatsoever that any one finds his passions inclining him toward. Adultery, incest, sex with children, sex with animals -- arguing against any such sexual behavior becomes much more difficult once we decide that the notion of self-restraint is incoherent. Meanwhile, back in the real world, the spread of AIDS is caused, overwhelmingly, by the practice of promiscuous sex. AIDS is spread by behavior that is based on the notion that whenever we have sexual inclinations, we inevitably yield to them. The acts by which people all over the world are infecting other people with the AIDS virus are most effectively -- and disastrously -- rationalized by the view that we do not have the moral capacity to discipline our sexual actions and behavior in light of the prerequisites both of our social obligations and of our health. And it is utterly wrongheaded to put in charge of the fight against AIDS someone who champions the very misunderstanding of human nature and human sexuality that most contributes to the ravages of the disease.