Impeach Federal Juges for making up rights.
Logical Barbarian
Judicial branch balanced Congress needs to use its power of
impeachment of civil servants i.e. Federal Judges on grounds of
violating their oath to uphold the United States Constitution.
The following cite was obtained from
http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/149/
<beginning cite>
Griswold v. Connecticut
381 U.S. 479 (1965)
Docket Number: 496
Abstract
Argued: March 29, 1965
Decided: June 7, 1965
Subjects: Judicial Power: Standing to Sue, Personal Injury
Facts of the Case
Griswold was the Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of
Connecticut. Both she and the Medical Director for the League gave
information, instruction, and other medical advice to married couples
concerning birth control. Griswold and her colleague were convicted
under a Connecticut law which criminalized the provision of counseling,
and other medical treatment, to married persons for purposes of
preventing conception.
Question Presented
Does the Constitution protect the right of marital privacy against
state restrictions on a couple's ability to be counseled in the use of
contraceptives?
Conclusion
Though the Constitution does not explicitly protect a general right to
privacy, the various guarantees within the Bill of Rights create
penumbras, or zones, that establish a right to privacy. Together, the
First, Third, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments, create a new constitutional
right, the right to privacy in marital relations. The Connecticut
statute conflicts with the exercise of this right and is therefore null
and void."
<end cite>
In order to come up with this judgment the justices had to create a new
right which they called the "right to privacy". In creating this
"right" the justices caused the Constitution of the United States
to be amended and so violated the same Constitution. If people want
such a right then they need to go through the process of amending the
Constitution instead of a decision being handed down by a bunch of
judicial tyrants whom violate their oaths to uphold the Constitution.
These judges need to be impeached for showing contempt for the
democratic rule of law.
Paul Anderson
<kerwin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
Amendment III
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without
the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be
prescribed by law.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated...
These amendments show that the private matters of religious beliefs,
your home, your person, are protected rights. Protected *because*
they are private matters, which indicate that privacy is a right.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The Supreme Court has found that the right of privacy is one of the
rights mentioned in the ninth amendment. It is not something they
made up.
Logical Barbarian
<your cite of relevant partial excerpts from the Amendments I, III, and
IV>
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
Amendment III
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without
the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be
prescribed by law.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated...
<cite end>
> These amendments show that the private matters of religious beliefs,
> your home, your person, are protected rights. Protected *because*
> they are private matters, which indicate that privacy is a right.
You are generalizing.
Since A, B, C actions are elements of the group rights
and A, B,C actions are some elements of the group private actions
If follows that all elements of the group private actions belong to the
group rights.
The above is not sound logic since elements of the group private
action can exist outside of the group rights.
<your cite>
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
<cite end>
> The Supreme Court has found that the right of privacy is one of the
> rights mentioned in the ninth amendment. It is not something they
> made up
The powers of the Supreme Court are based on the Rule of Law. In the
Rule of Law if you do not have proof in writing and can not proof it
with witnesses it is not a legal fact. To arbitrarily assign a meaning
to an Amendment contradicts the Rule of Law and infringes on the power
of Congress to make laws.
Paul Anderson
<kerwin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
The Supreme Court of the United States holds one opinion; and you hold
a different opinion. I know what the Supreme Court of the United
States is. Who are you to hold your opinion higher than that of the
Supreme Court? (Either answer that or cite your claims, that "The
powers of the Supreme Court are based on the Rule of Law" and that
"In the Rule of Law if you do not have proof in writing and can not
proof it with witnesses it is not a legal fact" and that "To
arbitrarily assign a meaning to an Amendment contradicts the Rule of
Law and infringes on the power of Congress to make laws.")
Alric Knebel
If the Constitution can not be interpreted to mean we have a right to
privacy, then an amendment should be added to grant it to us. It's
something one would assume would go without saying -- the we have a
right to privacy -- but if we have to spell it out for dipsticks and
anvils, then I recommend an amendment. I mean, a lot of Bush supporters
voted for him because because he promised a constitutional definition of
marriage. Perhaps defining marriage for someone else is more important
to you, and it definitely shows you have a disrespect for the concept of
privacy. I didn't read that whole brief, mostly because I figured it
would be another example of right-wing loons making a mountain out of a
molehill, and a general disdain for everything that liberates people
from an oppressive conformity. Considering the value of things like the
right to private property and gun ownership and freedom of speech and
freedom of press and freedom of religion, it seems that the accumulation
of all of those rights is equal to the right to privacy, and I'd take
that as a no-duh. The stupidity of the right definitely makes them a
danger to free society.
--
Alric Knebel
http://www.ironeyefortress.com/C-SPAN_loon.html
Alric Knebel
>
> The powers of the Supreme Court are based on the Rule of Law. In the
> Rule of Law if you do not have proof in writing and can not proof it
> with witnesses it is not a legal fact. To arbitrarily assign a meaning
> to an Amendment contradicts the Rule of Law and infringes on the power
> of Congress to make laws.
They're not "arbitrarily" assigning a meanig to an amendment. They're
INTERPRETING the law. Someone has to do that. If the courts didn't do
that, who would be the check on Congress? Remember, checks and
balances? Who would that be, if not the courts?
M.Butzin
person. Thing is now that law can be used to give health care to everyone.
Equal protection under the law....
"Alric Knebel" <al...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:4252D1C...@bellsouth.net...
Logical Barbarian
The Supreme Court of the United States holds one opinion; and you hold
a different opinion. I know what the Supreme Court of the United
States is. Who are you to hold your opinion higher than that of the
Supreme Court? (Either answer that or cite your claims, that "The
powers of the Supreme Court are based on the Rule of Law" and that
"In the Rule of Law if you do not have proof in writing and can not
proof it with witnesses it is not a legal fact" and that "To
arbitrarily assign a meaning to an Amendment contradicts the Rule of
Law and infringes on the power of Congress to make laws.")
> The Supreme Court of the United States holds one opinion; and you
hold
> a different opinion.
The Supreme Court is supposed to base their decisions on law not on
opinions since the later is arbitrary.
> I know what the Supreme Court of the United States is
The Supreme Court of the United states is the judicial branch of the
American Government. The judicial branches job is to administrate
justice according to the law. They do not have the authority to twist
the law in such a way as to expand the meaning of existing laws or
create new laws from the old. The Legislative branch is the one who
sphere of power it is to create and change laws.
> Who are you to hold your opinion higher than that of the
> Supreme Court?
I am a citizen of the United States and one of a vast group who exist
to keep the other groups in check by using my power of speech, peaceful
protest, and voting. Freedom of information gives me the means by
which I can determine how to best use my powers to effect my
government.
> Either answer that or cite your claims, that ...
Cite to support the claim "The
powers of the Supreme Court are based on the Rule of Law" and that
<Cite from http://www-personal.umich.edu/~alandear/glossary/r.html>
Rule of law: A legal system in which rules are clear, well-understood,
and fairly enforced, including property rights and enforcement of
contracts.
<end Cite>
Cite to support the claim "In the Rule of Law if you do not have proof
in writing and can not
proof it with witnesses it is not a legal fact
<Cite from
http://www.uslegalforms.com/lawdigest/legal-definitions.php/US/US-BURDEN_OF_PROOF.htm>
Burden of proof refers to the duty on a party in a case to submit
sufficient evidence on an issue in order to avoid dismissal of the
claim
<end cite>
Cites to support the claim "To
arbitrarily assign a meaning to an Amendment contradicts the Rule of
Law and infringes on the power of Congress to make laws."
<Cite from http://www-personal.umich.edu/~alandear/glossary/r.html>
Rule of law: A legal system in which rules are clear, well-understood,
and fairly enforced, including property rights and enforcement of
contracts.
<end Cite> Yes I know this is a duplicate but I figured I better make
it easy for you.
<Cite of excerpts from the U.S. Constitution located at
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.table.html>
Article 1 Section 1. All legislative powers herein granted shall be
vested in a Congress of the United States....
Article 3 Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be
vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the
Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.....
<End cite>
Paul Anderson
<kerwin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Left it all there -- 100% blather. Your cites do not support your
opinions.
Logical Barbarian
> They're not "arbitrarily" assigning a meaning to an amendment.
They're
> INTERPRETING the law. Someone has to do that. If the courts didn't do
> that, who would be the check on Congress? Remember, checks and
> balances? Who would that be, if not the courts?
<cite from
http://www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn2.0?stage=1&word=interpret>
The verb "interpret" has 6 senses in WordNet.
1. interpret, construe, see -- (make sense of; assign a meaning to;
"What message do you see in this letter?"; "How do you interpret his
behavior?")
2. interpret -- (give an interpretation or explanation to)
3. interpret, render -- (give an interpretation or rendition of; "The
pianist rendered the Beethoven sonata beautifully")
4. represent, interpret -- (create an image or likeness of; "The
painter represented his wife as a young girl")
5. translate, interpret, render -- (restate (words) from one language
into another language; "I have to translate when my in-laws from
Austria visit the U.S."; "Can you interpret the speech of the visiting
dignitaries?"; "She rendered the French poem into English"; "He
translates for the U.N.")
6. understand, read, interpret, translate -- (make sense of a language;
"She understands French"; "Can you read Greek?")
<end cite>
The Supreme court can explain the meaning of an Amendment but they have
to prove that the meaning is according to what legislatures and States
meant when they passed the Amendment. In the case of Griswold v.
Connecticut the Justices failed to do this as regards the 9th Amendment
and the "Right to Privacy".
According to Beyond Choice by Alexander Sanger Justice Goldberg's
reasoning was "That the government derived its powers people rather
than the people deriving their rights from the government. These are
fundamental rights even though those rights are not expressly stated in
the Bill of Rights." He gave no proof of the existence of the right
of privacy. Without proof his argument is arbitrary and so collapses.
Such an argument from a Supreme Court Judge is a mark of incompetence
and for that he should have been impeached.
Alric Knebel
> reasoning was "That the government derived its powers from people rather
> than the people deriving their rights from the government. These are
> fundamental rights even though those rights are not expressly stated in
> the Bill of Rights." He gave no proof of the existence of the right
> of privacy. Without proof his argument is arbitrary and so collapses.
> Such an argument from a Supreme Court Judge is a mark of incompetence
> and for that he should have been impeached.
But even I can argue that there IS a right to privacy, though not
explicitly stated. If every single right had to be laid out, the
Constitution itself would be unwieldy. Some common sense has to be
applied. The accumulation of rights indicates that we're a society that
respects the individual, therefore we have a private self. What good or
rights if not to protect the self? I'm saying the judges argument makes
perfect sense, and it can't be easily dismissed. As far as your
definition of interpret goes, that was a ridiculous thing to post. That
was worthless. If you believe so much in the quote you posted, about
the government getting its rights from the people instead of vice versa,
then in that case, a right to privacy is definitely included. Most
people assume that the interpretation of collective rights has at its
center the concept of the individual, which rests on respect for the
PERSON, the deeper person. Most people think we have a right to
privacy. That's the people giving power to the government. The judge
didn't in any way interpret against the people. He took the rights,
added them up to a sum that equaled a right to privacy. That's an
honest interpretation. I'm glad he did. Why aren't you?
Ray Fischer
>Below is an example I show why in order to keep the power of the
>Judicial branch balanced Congress needs to use its power of
>impeachment of civil servants i.e. Federal Judges on grounds of
>violating their oath to uphold the United States Constitution.
But the Rpeublican would first have to impeach half of their members
for the very same offence.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
The Chastening of Lesbos
<al...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> If the Constitution can not be interpreted to mean we have a right to
> privacy, then an amendment should be added to grant it to us. It's
> something one would assume would go without saying -- the we have a
> right to privacy -- but if we have to spell it out for dipsticks and
> anvils, then I recommend an amendment.
In actuality, the people (at least on talk.abortion) who say we don't
have rights that aren't explicitly granted us by the government are all
pro-choicers (hence the repeated exhortations to locate a "right to life"
in American law, and to abandon speaking of such things if they can't.)
And the "right" talk.abortioners most often use to justify abortion is
the right to self-defense, making the ostensible justification of "right
to privacy" acceptable fudgery on the part of the court.
--
T.W.I.D.N. € http://home.earthlink.net/~tagutcow
"When this 'bi-nogamous,' Irish-Italian Scorpio walks into a room,
people notice. 'They either want to fuck me or run away as quickly as
possible,' she says." -http://www.monk.com/display.php?p=People&id=42
Ray Fischer
>Below is an example I show why in order to keep the power of the
>Judicial branch balanced Congress needs to use its power of
>impeachment of civil servants i.e. Federal Judges on grounds of
>violating their oath to uphold the United States Constitution.
But the Republicans would first have to impeach half their members
Logical Barbarian
> Left it all there -- 100% blather. Your cites do not support your
> opinions.
Obviously since my cites do indeed support my claims they were just too
complicated for you too understand. I am sorry I gave you too much
credit for comprehension. The Supreme Court is the judicial branch of
the United States their duty is to ensure that the legal system has
rules which are clear, well-understood, and fairly enforced, including
property rights and enforcement of contracts. Congress is the
legislature branch which means they make the laws which The Supreme
Court judges by. The Supreme Court is to judge according too the
intent of Congress when they made the law. Interpreting that intent in
this manner is fine and good. When their interpretation exceeds or
alters that intent then they violate the Constitution by taking powers
that are Congresses unto themselves. They did this in the case of
Griswold v. Connecticut by creating a new right called the "right of
privacy". I showed you how the argument used was illogical. I also
stated that you cannot use the 9th to support it as it fails the burden
of proof since there is no evidence to suggest that a "right to
privacy" exist. There is simply no right of privacy in the Bill of
Rights unless you misinterpret it. That Supreme Court Justices
willingly did so states that they should have been impeached for
violating their oaths.
Logical Barbarian
> But even I can argue that there IS a right to privacy, though not
> explicitly stated
I do not see such a right. The arguments I have heard that it exists
eve inexplicitly state are illogical and/or lack proof. If you have an
argument then please by all means share it.
> The accumulation of rights indicates that we're a society that
> respects the individual, therefore we have a private self
<cite Preamble of the Constitution located at
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.preamble.html>
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect
union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the
common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings
of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this
Constitution for the United States of America.
<end cite>
Individualism was and is not the ideal behind the constitution as you
can see from the preamble. Liberty is one aspect but others also exist
such as promote the general welfare, secure the blessings of
tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general
welfare, and others. So we are a society that respects liberty and the
Rule of Law or at least should be if we uphold the Constitution.
> As far as your
> definition of interpret goes, that was a ridiculous thing to post.
That
> was worthless
I assume you meant my comment not the definition from Princeton. What
I said is both applicable and makes sense as anyone who reads it can
see below.
"The Supreme court can explain the meaning of an Amendment but they
have
to prove that the meaning is according to what legislatures and States
meant when they passed the Amendment. In the case of Griswold v.
Connecticut the Justices failed to do this as regards the 9th Amendment
and the "Right to Privacy"."
> If you believe so much in the quote you posted, about
> the government getting its rights from the people instead of vice
versa,
> then in that case, a right to privacy is definitely included. Most
> people assume that the interpretation of collective rights has at its
> center the concept of the individual, which rests on respect for the
> PERSON, the deeper person. Most people think we have a right to
> privacy. That's the people giving power to the government. The judge
> didn't in any way interpret against the people. He took the rights,
> added them up to a sum that equaled a right to privacy. That's an
> honest interpretation. I'm glad he did. Why aren't you?
What most people think does not make an amendment because it is
arbitrary and varies over time. You can use the 9th to admit into
consideration the Preamble, The Declaration of Independence or rights
from a relevant state constitution., i.e. Connecticut's in this
case. You can not enter arbitrary rights that you would like to exist.
Logical Barbarian
> But the Republicans would first have to impeach half of their members
> for the very same offence.
Being politicians this is probably true though Democrats are most
likely just as guilty. On the other hand Congress does have some
balances on it such as length of term and the ability of Americans to
vote them out. Judges can be impeached but otherwise remain in office
as long as they want no matter how blatantly they misuse their office
having no other controls on them.
Ray Fischer
>Paul Anderson wrote:
>
>> Left it all there -- 100% blather. Your cites do not support your
>> opinions.
>
>Obviously since my cites do indeed support my claims they were just too
>complicated for you too understand. I am sorry I gave you too much
>credit for comprehension. The Supreme Court is the judicial branch of
>the United States their duty is to ensure that the legal system has
>rules which are clear, well-understood, and fairly enforced, including
>property rights and enforcement of contracts.
Making law is the job of congress. Enforcing law is the job of the
executive branch.
> Congress is the
>legislature branch which means they make the laws which The Supreme
>Court judges by.
Not strictly true. Congress does not make constitutional law.
> The Supreme Court is to judge according too the
>intent of Congress when they made the law. Interpreting that intent in
>this manner is fine and good. When their interpretation exceeds or
>alters that intent then they violate the Constitution by taking powers
>that are Congresses unto themselves.
When congress violates the constitution then it is the job of the
court to rule appropriately.
> They did this in the case of
>Griswold v. Connecticut by creating a new right called the "right of
>privacy".
A right which has ample support in the Constitution.
> I showed you how the argument used was illogical. I also
>stated that you cannot use the 9th to support it as it fails the burden
>of proof since there is no evidence to suggest that a "right to
>privacy" exist.
What is the basis for a right against unreasonable seaches if not a
right of privacy?
> There is simply no right of privacy in the Bill of
>Rights unless you misinterpret it.
In your undereducated opinion.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>Alric Knebel wrote:
>
>> But even I can argue that there IS a right to privacy, though not
>> explicitly stated
>
>I do not see such a right. The arguments I have heard that it exists
>eve inexplicitly state are illogical and/or lack proof.
You don't like them so you refuse to accept them.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>Ray Fischer wrote:
>
>> But the Republicans would first have to impeach half of their members
>> for the very same offence.
>
>Being politicians this is probably true though Democrats are most
>likely just as guilty.
Or not.
> On the other hand Congress does have some
>balances on it such as length of term and the ability of Americans to
>vote them out. Judges can be impeached but otherwise remain in office
>as long as they want no matter how blatantly they misuse their office
>having no other controls on them.
The was done deliberately by the framers of the constitution to enable
the judiciacy to be free of corrupting political influence.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
qwerty
"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:d32h0r$eff$1...@bolt.sonic.net...
> Logical Barbarian <kerwin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>Paul Anderson wrote:
>>
>>> Left it all there -- 100% blather. Your cites do not support your
>>> opinions.
>>
>>Obviously since my cites do indeed support my claims they were just too
>>complicated for you too understand. I am sorry I gave you too much
>>credit for comprehension. The Supreme Court is the judicial branch of
>>the United States their duty is to ensure that the legal system has
>>rules which are clear, well-understood, and fairly enforced, including
>>property rights and enforcement of contracts.
>
> Making law is the job of congress. Enforcing law is the job of the
> executive branch.
"The legislature's job is to write law. It's the executive branch's job to
interpret law."- G. W. Bush Austin, Texas, Nov. 22, 2000
http://slate.msn.com/default.aspx?id=76886
Ray Fischer
George W. Bush is a moron who doesn't know shit about the constitution
he tries to destroy.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Logical Barbarian
> Making law is the job of congress. Enforcing law is the job of the
> executive branch.
Look at the situation. You will see that though at times the executive
branch does order law enforcement around such as in emergency and for
arrest orders the judicial branch has as much or more powers telling
them to let go or hold an arrestee, how to proceed when collecting
evidence. Since the courts can override the limit executive powers I
gave them credit for the enforcement.
> Not strictly true. Congress does not make constitutional law.
Two thirds of both houses are needed to propose an amendment that must
then be ratified by the states. There is a 2nd way that does bypass
Congress but as far as I know has never been taken.
> When congress violates the constitution then it is the job of the
> court to rule appropriately.
I am not disagreeing with this. The President and Congress balances
the Supreme Court and The Supreme Court and the President balances
Congress. Congress and The President are failing in their duties and
the Supreme Court is out of control because of it.
> A right which has ample support in the Constitution.
Wrong. Griswold v. Connecticut decided this issue and the arguments
used by the justice were illogical or/and lacked proof.
> What is the basis for a right against unreasonable searches if not a
> right of privacy?
According to the 4th amendment it is your and my right to feel safe
from government searches nothing more and nothing less.
>> There is simply no right of privacy in the Bill of
>>Rights unless you misinterpret it.
> In your undereducated opinion.
No opinion just a logical argument based on legal facts. You can
counter it in the same way though I have yet to hear a sound argument.
Logical Barbarian
> You don't like them so you refuse to accept them.
What I said was that the right to privacy is not in the Constitution
and I gave a logical and sound argument to prove those who said
otherwise were wrong. See my response to Paul Anderson's first April
5th post to this string for the details.
Logical Barbarian
> The was done deliberately by the framers of the constitution to
enable
> the judiciary to be free of corrupting political influence.
If this is the case then it failed. The framers foresaw problems and
allowed for impeachment of civil servants whom include judges. They
also gave congress authority to create and reorganize the inferior
courts. They also allowed for the Amendment process.
Logical Barbarian
"The legislature's job is to write law. It's the executive branch's job
to
interpret law."- G. W. Bush Austin, Texas, Nov. 22, 2000
It's one of those Bush "OOPS!" ;->
Ray Fischer
>Ray Fischer wrote:
>
>> Making law is the job of congress. Enforcing law is the job of the
>> executive branch.
>
>Look at the situation. You will see that though at times the executive
>branch does order law enforcement around such as in emergency and for
>arrest orders the judicial branch has as much or more powers telling
>them to let go or hold an arrestee, how to proceed when collecting
>evidence. Since the courts can override the limit executive powers I
>gave them credit for the enforcement.
They still don't enforce. When an officer goes and arrests somebody
he is working for the executive branch.
>> When congress violates the constitution then it is the job of the
>> court to rule appropriately.
>
>I am not disagreeing with this. The President and Congress balances
>the Supreme Court and The Supreme Court and the President balances
>Congress. Congress and The President are failing in their duties and
>the Supreme Court is out of control because of it.
"Out of control" for not agreeing with you?
>> A right which has ample support in the Constitution.
>
>Wrong. Griswold v. Connecticut decided this issue and the arguments
>used by the justice were illogical or/and lacked proof.
In your opinion.
>> What is the basis for a right against unreasonable searches if not a
>> right of privacy?
>
>According to the 4th amendment it is your and my right to feel safe
>from government searches nothing more and nothing less.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated"
I don't see that right being limited to government searches. In fact
it clearly refers to a right of privacy against unreasonable seaarches
AND seizures, which obviously pertains to pregnancy.
>>> There is simply no right of privacy in the Bill of
>>>Rights unless you misinterpret it.
>
>> In your undereducated opinion.
>
>No opinion just a logical argument based on legal facts.
A logical argument which seems to be nothing more than "because I say so".
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>Ray Fischer wrote:
>
>> You don't like them so you refuse to accept them.
>
>What I said was that the right to privacy is not in the Constitution
Yes it is.
>and I gave a logical and sound argument to prove those who said
>otherwise were wrong.
Every "logical and sound argument" you've provided so far is nothing
more than "I'm right because I say so".
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Paul Anderson
<kerwin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
They are all in bed together. Any action against the courts would be
done by the executive branch which is in power only because the court
ignored the Costitution for their benefit.
Logical Barbarian
> They still don't enforce. When an officer goes and arrests somebody
> he is working for the executive branch.
This is a good question which I will need to research but it does not
bear on our current discussion. The courts power is judicial which is
to correctly apply the law to situations brought before them and order
their decision carried out.
> "Out of control" for not agreeing with you?
No, the American system of Government was created on a balance of
power. As it is practiced now no balance exist upon the Judicial
branch. This has created a situation where judges whatever their
political leaning can make illogical decisions loosely based on law
that are not backed up by proof. These decisions then become laws
that are not passed by the legislature process of America. In other
words it is up to the American People through their legislature
process to make laws not the Judicial branch whom is not voted in.
> In your opinion.
And
> A logical argument which seems to be nothing more than "because I say
so".
Logic is not an opinion. The faulty argument is that because
Amendments I, III, and IV protect items that are "private matters"
it follows that the right of privacy exist. Why the argument is
illogical is that just because some "private matters" are protected
does not mean all "private matters" are protected. The 9th is used
to bring in the "right of privacy" but in law you need proof and
the Justice presented no proof that such a right exist to be brought
in.
> "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers,
> and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
> violated"
I failed to mention unreasonable and seizers. But that doesn't
change the fact that this is not an Amendment that grants the right of
privacy. It does grant the right to be safe from unreasonable
government and other searches and seizures.
> I don't see that right being limited to government searches. In fact
> it clearly refers to a right of privacy against unreasonable searches
> AND seizures, which obviously pertains to pregnancy.
I do not see your logic unless the government checks medical records
for evidence of pregnancy, orders a women examined to determine if she
is pregnant and/or seizes the unborn child without a judges consent.
None of which was done in Griswold v. Connecticut.
Logical Barbarian
>>What I said was that the right to privacy is not in the Constitution
Ray Fischer wrote:
> Yes it is.
As a good judge would say. Present proof that what you say is true or
I can only come to the conclusion that you are lying.
> Every "logical and sound argument" you've provided so far is nothing
> more than "I'm right because I say so".
The logic argument is that just because some "private matters" are
protected by the bill of rights does not mean all "private matters"
are protected by the bill of rights. The other logical argument is
that since you need proof to lawfully bring "the right of privacy"
in through the 9th Amendment and no Justice gave proof it follows that
none of t he Justices did lawfully bring the "right of privacy"
into the Bill of Rights.
You are the one who has failed to present a logical and sound argument
to support your view that the "right of privacy" exist within the
Bill of Rights.
Logical Barbarian
> They are all in bed together. Any action against the courts would be
> done by the executive branch which is in power only because the court
> ignored the Costitution for their benefit.
I see evidence that all three branches work together and not for the
betterment of the American people. Still I must strive to improve the
situation.
Ray Fischer
>Ray Fischer wrote:
>
>> They still don't enforce. When an officer goes and arrests somebody
>> he is working for the executive branch.
>
>This is a good question which I will need to research but it does not
>bear on our current discussion. The courts power is judicial which is
>to correctly apply the law to situations brought before them and order
>their decision carried out.
"Correctly" according to you?
>> "Out of control" for not agreeing with you?
>
>No, the American system of Government was created on a balance of
>power. As it is practiced now no balance exist upon the Judicial
>branch.
Except that judges are picked by the executive branch and confirmed by
the legislative branch. Laws are enforced by the executive branch and
enacted by the legislative branch.
Looks like a balance to me.
> This has created a situation where judges whatever their
>political leaning can make illogical decisions loosely based on law
>that are not backed up by proof.
Translation: The courts won't do as I say.
>> A logical argument which seems to be nothing more than "because I say
>so".
>
>Logic is not an opinion.
That's right. You don't offer logic.
> The faulty argument is that because
>Amendments I, III, and IV protect items that are "private matters"
> it follows that the right of privacy exist. Why the argument is
>illogical is that just because some "private matters" are protected
>does not mean all "private matters" are protected.
Those amendments combined with the 9th clearly show an intent to
protect people's right of privacy.
> The 9th is used
>to bring in the "right of privacy" but in law you need proof and
>the Justice presented no proof that such a right exist to be brought
>in.
That's not how the constitution works. People do not need to prove
that they have rights. The government has to prove that it is given
the power to act.
> > "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
>papers,
>> and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
>
>> violated"
>
>I failed to mention unreasonable and seizers. But that doesn't
>change the fact that this is not an Amendment that grants the right of
>privacy.
In your opinion.
And notice that the amendment prevents the government from siezing the
use of a woman's body in order to benefit the fetus?
> It does grant the right to be safe from unreasonable
>government and other searches and seizures.
It does.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>> Every "logical and sound argument" you've provided so far is nothing
>> more than "I'm right because I say so".
>
>The logic argument is that just because some "private matters" are
>protected by the bill of rights does not mean all "private matters"
>are protected by the bill of rights.
9th amendment.
> The other logical argument is
>that since you need proof to lawfully bring "the right of privacy"
No I do NOT. Rights are a given. They do not need to be proven.
YOU need to prove that they do not exist.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Logical Barbarian
> Except that judges are picked by the executive branch and confirmed
by
> the legislative branch. Laws are enforced by the executive branch and
> enacted by the legislative branch.
> Looks like a balance to me.
Congress can act limit the powers of the President. The President acts
to limit the powers of Congress. The Judicial branch keeps both
branches accountable and so acts as a balance to them. Nothing as it is
now practiced keeps the judicial branch from excesses. The appointing
process does not act as a control on those already sitting as they do
not have a limit on the time they serve beyond lifetime. The Senate
may impeach a judge with a two thirds majority. Congress can all
choose to "restructure" the inferior courts including choosing the
way judges are appointed. Congress chooses not to exercise their power
in these ways.
> Translation: The courts won't do as I say.
You obviously don't know me very well.
> That's right. You don't offer logic.
Anyone with an open mind who understands logic can see that I do. I
also notice you do not offer a logical argument to counter mine which
to me means you do not have one.
> Those amendments combined with the 9th clearly show an intent to
> protect people's right of privacy.
Yet no one can show proof that this is so including the Justices who
couldn't come to a consensus on how the "right to privacy" was in
the Bill of Rights just that it was there. You failed to counter my
logical argument that showed that those various arguments by the
Justices were flawed.
> that's not how the constitution works. People do not need to prove
> that they have rights. The government has to prove that it is given
> the power to act.
Unless you want an arbitrary system of law proof is always necessary.
A way exist to amend the Constitution but it is not the job of the
Supreme Court to do so. The people did not give The Supreme Court the
power to create "rights" and laws the later just took it.
> And notice that the amendment prevents the government from seizing
the
> use of a woman's body in order to benefit the fetus?
OK the unreasonable search and seizer amendment argument works. You
didn't even need the non-existent "right of privacy" and applied
an existent right
Logical Barbarian
> No I do NOT. Rights are a given. They do not need to be proven.
You have to prove they were given by the legislative process we have in
the United States.
> YOU need to prove that they do not exist.
You fail to understand how "The Rule of Law" works. The burden of
proof is that if you propose a right exist you must then prove that
same right exist. All I need to do is prove the proof that backs up
the "right of privacy" is unsound and I did just that. You have not
shown my proof to be unsound.
Ray Fischer
>Ray Fischer wrote:
>> Except that judges are picked by the executive branch and confirmed by
>> the legislative branch. Laws are enforced by the executive branch and
>> enacted by the legislative branch.
>> Looks like a balance to me.
>
>Congress can act limit the powers of the President.
And the judiciary.
> The President acts
>to limit the powers of Congress.
And the judiciary.
> The Judicial branch keeps both
>branches accountable and so acts as a balance to them. Nothing as it is
>now practiced keeps the judicial branch from excesses.
Except for all the things which I cited above and which you choose to
ignore.
> The appointing
>process does not act as a control on those already sitting as they do
>not have a limit on the time they serve beyond lifetime.
Unless impeached or overruled by other judges appointed by the
president and confirmed by the senate.
> The Senate
>may impeach a judge with a two thirds majority. Congress can all
>choose to "restructure" the inferior courts including choosing the
>way judges are appointed. Congress chooses not to exercise their power
>in these ways.
All of which make up for a balance of powers.
>> Translation: The courts won't do as I say.
>
>You obviously don't know me very well.
I read what you write. Your entire argument seems to be that you
don't like the way the courts have ruled and so they should be
punished.
>> That's right. You don't offer logic.
>
>Anyone with an open mind who understands logic can see that I do.
Yeah, tell yourself that you're right. That'll work.
>> Those amendments combined with the 9th clearly show an intent to
>> protect people's right of privacy.
>
>Yet no one can show proof that this is so including the Justices who
But you reject all evidence.
>> that's not how the constitution works. People do not need to prove
>> that they have rights. The government has to prove that it is given
>> the power to act.
>
>Unless you want an arbitrary system of law proof is always necessary.
So PROVE that the government has the power to violate people's right
to privacy.
>> And notice that the amendment prevents the government from seizing the
>> use of a woman's body in order to benefit the fetus?
>
>OK the unreasonable search and seizer amendment argument works. You
>didn't even need the non-existent "right of privacy" and applied
>an existent right
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Paul Anderson
<kerwin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Ray Fischer wrote:
>
>> No I do NOT. Rights are a given. They do not need to be proven.
>
>You have to prove they were given by the legislative process we have in
>the United States.
>
>> YOU need to prove that they do not exist.
>
>You fail to understand how "The Rule of Law" works. The burden of
>proof is that if you propose a right exist you must then prove that
>same right exist.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights,
shall not be construed to deny or disparage others
retained by the people.
Above is the WRITTEN PROOF that other rights exist that are retained
by the people. The right of privacy is such a right. The existence
of a right to privacy is implied in other specifiec rights. If you
wish to limjit the right to privacy you need to justify those limits.
Ray Fischer
>Ray Fischer wrote:
>
>> No I do NOT. Rights are a given. They do not need to be proven.
>
>You have to prove they were given by the legislative process we have in
>the United States.
No I do not. Rights are a given. People are inherently free. We do
not need to justify our freedom.
>> YOU need to prove that they do not exist.
>
>You fail to understand how "The Rule of Law" works.
No, YOU do not.
> The burden of
>proof is that if you propose a right exist you must then prove that
>same right exist.
WRONG! The US is not a dictatorship where people need to ask
permisssion to be free. Read the constitution. It doesn't
list rights. It describes what the government is allowed to do.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net