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.

Politics : Proof that John Kerry is Unfit for Command -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ann Corrigan who wrote (24877)	11/7/2004 1:31:57 AM
From: Wayners	Respond to of 27181

I believe that the founding fathers granted patriots the power to take out rogue judges and enemies of the states with the firearms granted us via our unalienable rights.

To: Ann Corrigan who wrote (24877)	11/7/2004 9:00:30 AM
From: cirrus	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 27181

Both candidates had their gaffes. Bush told a audience of rather wealthy individuals "You are my base." Bush scored heavily among evangelicals with his proposal for a constitutional amendment defining marriage. It was the typical short & sweet "moral absolute" they crave and they bought it - even though Dick Cheney and everyone else, including Kerry, prefers to let the states deal with the issue. What people don't seem to realize is that there is far greater danger in ultra-conservative judges than in liberal judges - Clarence Thomas being a prime example. I posted the other day a link describing his logic in postulating that the Constitution's prohibition against Congress making any law affecting the establishment of religion applied only to Congress - not the state legislatures. Uh oh. Someone tried to defend Thomas by saying it wouldn't happen anyway because the state used as an example had a clause prohibiting a state religion, but that misses the point. Extremely narrow interpretations of the Constitution will make a mockery of that document... is the right to bear arms absolute? Does everyone have the right to their own personal nuclear weapon? I certainly don't think so. But Thomas, in the example I posted, noted that several states has "state religions" when the Bill of Rights was passed, therefore it was not the intent of the founders to ban "state" religions only "federal" religions. Using the same logic, one could conclude that since muzzleloaders were the firearms of the era, the founders intended the constitution to protect only muzzleloaders. Or nukes for everyone. Literal interpretation gets so sticky... Have you seen the rubber "Livestrong" bracelets that are so popular now with the proceeds going to the fight against cancer? Well, at one high school cross-country meet a race official disqualified dozens of finishers because they wore the bracelets in violation of a rule that bans runners from wearing "jewelry". (After an uproar the ruling was overturned because the runners weren't warned before the race that the official considered the wristbands "jewelry". But isn't that absurd? Taken out of context, literal interpretation of anything, including the Bible, is dangerous. Liberal judges may tick people off - but ultraconservatives can do real damage.