The greatest hypocrisy of all? It’s a woman’s choice to keep/abort her baby but no way are we gonna let her pick a different kind of light bulb!
@firetyger - Got that right! She’s a stupid little slave that needs to be told what to do.
And really, when you come to think of it, do women really have a choice to have an abortion or are the forced into that decision too?
@ProfessorTom - Well, from the way people talk… You get told you’re a moron if you don’t get an abortion because you’re too young/not financially stable. So lots of girls feel pressured to do it. By parents, boyfriends, etc. Then at the same time you’re told you’re an idiot if you save sex for marriage!
Hypocrisy…
@firetyger - But it’s always your choice, stupid slave! Just make sure you decide rightly, else you’ll be sent to the Ministry of Truth for re-education.
Apparently government is only interested in regulating the small things like light bulbs and toilets. Murdering the unborn receives total government sanction.
Go figure.
There is SO MUCH hypocrisy in all of this PC type thinking these days!
I saw this when it was first up on youtube. I wonder if next election will bring more members into Congress like this.
@firetyger - The greatest hypocrisy of all? It’s a woman’s choice to keep/abort her baby but no way are we gonna let her pick a different kind of light bulb!
In this country, we have things like “democracy” and “majority rule.” On the national and state levels, we have things like a “legislature” to represent the people and to pass laws in the public interest. There is, fortunately, limits to majority rule. The United States Constitution protect from state and federal governments certain liberties. Amongst them is privacy, right to family, and the woman’s right to abortion.
If you don’t like abortion rights or light bulb legislation, too fucking bad. Either camapgin to change the Constitution and strip from women the right over her own body or change light bulb legislation through the democratic process.
You may not know of it, but in the Constitution certain laws and liberties have been placed beyond the reach of majority rule: Guns, Speech, Religion. And amongst these: Privacy, family, and abortion.
Curt, you may as fucking well wonder why “free press” recieves total government sanction. Puzzle away.
@Celestial_Teapot - No, we don’t have majority rule. This United States is a Republic, not a Democracy.
@ProfessorTom - Just make sure you decide rightly, else you’ll be sent to the Ministry of Truth for re-education.
The Civil Rights Amendments were passed shortly afer the Civil War by both houses of congress and ratified by greater or equal to 3/4th of the states. If you don’t like the Fourteenth Amendment and its protection of women reproduction rights, then campaign to repeal or modify it.
@ProfessorTom - No, we don’t have majority rule. This United States is a Republic, not a Democracy.
It’s a representative democracy. Bullshit semantics.
@ProfessorTom - I have not. But I am enjoying their sentiments. I consider this guy a good guy too. I will have to check them out.
@Celestial_Teapot - Lol. “Bullshit semantics.” Not really. It would be akin to saying that the only difference between socialism and communism is semantics.
@The_ATM - In practice, “republic” and “democracy” means the same thing. In some specific contexts, the distinction may be more particular and secialized, but practically, there’s no difference (and the terms are certainly interchangable in this context).
If you don’t believe me, try looking up the terms in a dictionary or wikipedia.
If they were practically the same thing, why would this liberal organization support changing the US from a representational republic into a pure democracy? They are similar, but they shouldn’t be equated in any context. Just like socialism and communism shouldn’t be equated in any context. Just like communism and fascism shouldn’t be equated in any context. Ok, Glenn Beck… err.. I mean Celestial Teapot.
@The_ATM - If they were practically the same thing, why would this liberal organization support changing the US from a representational republic into a pure democracy?
In this context I was referencing the present government as a democracy. It should be clear that I was meaning the status quo representative democracy. To distinguish this with “republic” would be an artifical semantic differentiation.
And stop being a fucking douche. Whether this form of government is called a “republic” or “democracy” is immaterial to my original point. Why don’t you address a substanative point of disagreement?
@Celestial_Teapot - “Why don’t you address a substanative point of disagreement?”
Well, I didn’t really disagree with your original point.
“And stop being a fucking douche. Whether this form of government is called a “republic” or “democracy” is immaterial to my original point. “
In your original point, you essentially conceded what you later went on to disagree with yourself about. USA is a constitutional republic which I consider to be a long shot from even a representational democracy. What I see often, is people love to call America a democracy when > 51% of people agree with them on an issue. They love to call it a republic when it favors them. This sort of sophistry is exactly what your type feed off of and that to me is a very substantive point.
“To distinguish this with “republic” would be an artifical semantic differentiation.”
Ok then. Obama is a communist, just like Hitler. lol.
@The_ATM - Well, I didn’t really disagree with your original point.
Fair enough.
USA is a constitutional republic which I consider to be a long shot from even a representational democracy.
The United States is both a representative demcoracy and a republic.
If you were to claim that the Untied States is undemocratic or that the Untied States government doesn’t operate through a representative democracy you would be incorrect.
@The_ATM - Sorry for trolling on your [ProfessorTom's] site…
I didn’t consider the exchange trolling. I just hope you didn’t have trolly intentions. *glowers*
@Celestial_Teapot - There are some sources that wonder about the legality of the ratification process for the Civil War amendments, btw. The Reconstruction Acts resulted in some states not having truly representational legislatures to pass the amendments, hence why a couple of states actually repealed the amendments once a true representational state government was formed. It was only a statement, as it didn’t change anything, but it was a point made.
Personally, I think the 14th Amendment has been liberally applied by the Supreme Court that now makes a complete mess and hash over a lot of things now.
@The_ATM - You’re neither trolling or bothering me. As your host, I’ll let you know when it’s time to leave. There’s no danger of that happening any time soon.
@cmdr_keen - There are some sources that wonder about the legality of the ratification process for the Civil War amendments, btw.
Sure, I would argue that specific politicians were rightfully excluded from political office. Secession is as treasonous an action I can think of.
The Reconstruction Acts resulted in some states not having truly representational legislatures to pass the amendments…
And likewise, there had been states that had approved, and then rescinded approval of amendments in the Bill of Rights. In the long-run, this is a nill point. By 2003, all states that were a part of the union in 1968 had ratified the Amendments. Wikipedia Linky.
It’s a little sad that we don’t give the history of the Civil Rights amendments the same historical deference we do the Bill of Rights. There’s no 1868 “Federalist papers”, but I would have guessed that the Amendments would have been rightfully controversial. The language of the amendments, for the first time, constitutionally curtailed the rights of the states.
Personally, I think the 14th Amendment has been liberally applied by the Supreme Court that now makes a complete mess and hash over a lot of things now.
I’d be willing to have that debate. =D
I’d argue two things:
(1) Language of the Fourteenth Amendment were intentionally broad. It would be incorrect to give narrow and specific meaning to phrases like “liberty” and “due process.”
(2) Supreme Court rulings on the 14th Amendment were decided in the context of precedence and Common Law. I would defend that rulings on privacy and abortion “made sense” when considering their legal context.
@cmdr_keen, @Celestial_Teapot - I would be interested in seeing such a discussion if it were to occur. I happen to fall on the pro-state sovereignty side of things which invariably would make me a racist and pro-slavery, as that is what modern political discourse of federalism has become. So, I would be interested in seeing someone else make the case. Plus, I don’t have to dust off any books.
@The_ATM - @cmdr_keen - @Celestial_Teapot - You’re more than welcome to have that debate here in the comments. As far as I know, there is no length limit on comments.
@The_ATM - According to Scalia’s originalism jurisprudence, the meaning of legislation should be limited to how its words were understand at the time it was written.
(1) Scalia had publicly said that the equal protection clause shouldn’t apply to women and gays (at least, not as broadly as Court majorities had ruled). He would argue that in 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was drafted, no one understood “equal protection” to extend to women and gays. The understood context, at the time, were former slaves.
(2) Scalia would make a similar argument for substantive due process– extention of the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause to guarentee and protect fundamental rights. More specifcally, Scalia would say that in 1868, no one would have imagined “due process” to extend to privacy and abortion. The “due process” language also shows up in the Fifth Amendmnt, and at the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights, none of the founders had abortion in mind.
Scalia says that while expansive reading of the Fourteenth Amendment may lead to good results– after all, who isn’t for the rigths of women, minorities, and gays– it isn’t in the role of judges to decide. To take give judge expansive power in judicial interpretation is to open the door for judges to legislate from the bench.
If there is need for more rights and more protections, then he says that it needs to be passed as legislation by congress or enshrined as a new amendment by the nation.
cmdr_keen could probably give sharp historical arguments for limited readings of the Fourteenth Amendment, but this is the spirit of the Scalia school of originalism. I think Clarence Thomas (who I like a lot less) reasons his rulings much the same way.
@Celestial_Teapot - I guess I was more specifically referring to the circumstances in which the Reconstruction Amendments were passed. I have always had the impression that the Civil War was a bad policy decision on both sides. Slavery was on it’s way out in the longer term, war or no war. 700k dead… think of all of the social and economic progress lost, just as in all wars.
Comments (29)
The greatest hypocrisy of all? It’s a woman’s choice to keep/abort her baby but no way are we gonna let her pick a different kind of light bulb!
@firetyger - Got that right! She’s a stupid little slave that needs to be told what to do.
And really, when you come to think of it, do women really have a choice to have an abortion or are the forced into that decision too?
@ProfessorTom - Well, from the way people talk… You get told you’re a moron if you don’t get an abortion because you’re too young/not financially stable. So lots of girls feel pressured to do it. By parents, boyfriends, etc. Then at the same time you’re told you’re an idiot if you save sex for marriage!
Hypocrisy…
@firetyger - But it’s always your choice, stupid slave! Just make sure you decide rightly, else you’ll be sent to the Ministry of Truth for re-education.
Apparently government is only interested in regulating the small things like light bulbs and toilets. Murdering the unborn receives total government sanction.
Go figure.
There is SO MUCH hypocrisy in all of this PC type thinking these days!
I saw this when it was first up on youtube. I wonder if next election will bring more members into Congress like this.
@firetyger - The greatest hypocrisy of all? It’s a woman’s choice to keep/abort her baby but no way are we gonna let her pick a different kind of light bulb!
In this country, we have things like “democracy” and “majority rule.” On the national and state levels, we have things like a “legislature” to represent the people and to pass laws in the public interest. There is, fortunately, limits to majority rule. The United States Constitution protect from state and federal governments certain liberties. Amongst them is privacy, right to family, and the woman’s right to abortion.
If you don’t like abortion rights or light bulb legislation, too fucking bad. Either camapgin to change the Constitution and strip from women the right over her own body or change light bulb legislation through the democratic process.
@The_ATM - We can only hope and pray.
Speaking of, have you hear Nigel Farage or Sir Godfrey Bloom in the EU Parliament?
@LoBornlytesThoughtPalace - Murdering the unborn receives total government sanction.
You may not know of it, but in the Constitution certain laws and liberties have been placed beyond the reach of majority rule: Guns, Speech, Religion. And amongst these: Privacy, family, and abortion.
Curt, you may as fucking well wonder why “free press” recieves total government sanction. Puzzle away.
@Celestial_Teapot - No, we don’t have majority rule. This United States is a Republic, not a Democracy.
@ProfessorTom - Just make sure you decide rightly, else you’ll be sent to the Ministry of Truth for re-education.
The Civil Rights Amendments were passed shortly afer the Civil War by both houses of congress and ratified by greater or equal to 3/4th of the states. If you don’t like the Fourteenth Amendment and its protection of women reproduction rights, then campaign to repeal or modify it.
@ProfessorTom - No, we don’t have majority rule. This United States is a Republic, not a Democracy.
It’s a representative democracy. Bullshit semantics.
@Celestial_Teapot - You’re late to the game. Thanks for playing.
@ProfessorTom - ?
@ProfessorTom - I have not. But I am enjoying their sentiments. I consider this guy a good guy too. I will have to check them out.
@Celestial_Teapot - Lol. “Bullshit semantics.” Not really. It would be akin to saying that the only difference between socialism and communism is semantics.
@The_ATM - In practice, “republic” and “democracy” means the same thing. In some specific contexts, the distinction may be more particular and secialized, but practically, there’s no difference (and the terms are certainly interchangable in this context).
If you don’t believe me, try looking up the terms in a dictionary or wikipedia.
@Celestial_Teapot - You don’t get it.
If they were practically the same thing, why would this liberal organization support changing the US from a representational republic into a pure democracy?
They are similar, but they shouldn’t be equated in any context. Just like socialism and communism shouldn’t be equated in any context. Just like communism and fascism shouldn’t be equated in any context. Ok, Glenn Beck… err.. I mean Celestial Teapot.
@The_ATM - If they were practically the same thing, why would this liberal organization support changing the US from a representational republic into a pure democracy?
In this context I was referencing the present government as a democracy. It should be clear that I was meaning the status quo representative democracy. To distinguish this with “republic” would be an artifical semantic differentiation.
And stop being a fucking douche. Whether this form of government is called a “republic” or “democracy” is immaterial to my original point. Why don’t you address a substanative point of disagreement?
@Celestial_Teapot - “Why don’t you address a substanative point of disagreement?”
Well, I didn’t really disagree with your original point.
“And stop being a fucking douche. Whether this form of government is called a “republic” or “democracy” is immaterial to my original point. “
In your original point, you essentially conceded what you later went on to disagree with yourself about. USA is a constitutional republic which I consider to be a long shot from even a representational democracy. What I see often, is people love to call America a democracy when > 51% of people agree with them on an issue. They love to call it a republic when it favors them. This sort of sophistry is exactly what your type feed off of and that to me is a very substantive point.
“To distinguish this with “republic” would be an artifical semantic differentiation.”
Ok then. Obama is a communist, just like Hitler. lol.
@ProfessorTom - Sorry for trolling on your site…
@The_ATM - Well, I didn’t really disagree with your original point.
Fair enough.
USA is a constitutional republic which I consider to be a long shot from even a representational democracy.
The United States is both a representative demcoracy and a republic.
If you were to claim that the Untied States is undemocratic or that the Untied States government doesn’t operate through a representative democracy you would be incorrect.
@The_ATM - Sorry for trolling on your [ProfessorTom's] site…
I didn’t consider the exchange trolling. I just hope you didn’t have trolly intentions. *glowers*
@Celestial_Teapot - There are some sources that wonder about the legality of the ratification process for the Civil War amendments, btw. The Reconstruction Acts resulted in some states not having truly representational legislatures to pass the amendments, hence why a couple of states actually repealed the amendments once a true representational state government was formed. It was only a statement, as it didn’t change anything, but it was a point made.
Personally, I think the 14th Amendment has been liberally applied by the Supreme Court that now makes a complete mess and hash over a lot of things now.
@The_ATM - You’re neither trolling or bothering me. As your host, I’ll let you know when it’s time to leave. There’s no danger of that happening any time soon.
@cmdr_keen - There are some sources that wonder about the legality of the ratification process for the Civil War amendments, btw.
Sure, I would argue that specific politicians were rightfully excluded from political office. Secession is as treasonous an action I can think of.
The Reconstruction Acts resulted in some states not having truly representational legislatures to pass the amendments…
And likewise, there had been states that had approved, and then rescinded approval of amendments in the Bill of Rights. In the long-run, this is a nill point. By 2003, all states that were a part of the union in 1968 had ratified the Amendments. Wikipedia Linky.
It’s a little sad that we don’t give the history of the Civil Rights amendments the same historical deference we do the Bill of Rights. There’s no 1868 “Federalist papers”, but I would have guessed that the Amendments would have been rightfully controversial. The language of the amendments, for the first time, constitutionally curtailed the rights of the states.
Personally, I think the 14th Amendment has been liberally applied by the Supreme Court that now makes a complete mess and hash over a lot of things now.
I’d be willing to have that debate. =D
I’d argue two things:
(1) Language of the Fourteenth Amendment were intentionally broad. It would be incorrect to give narrow and specific meaning to phrases like “liberty” and “due process.”
(2) Supreme Court rulings on the 14th Amendment were decided in the context of precedence and Common Law. I would defend that rulings on privacy and abortion “made sense” when considering their legal context.
@cmdr_keen, @Celestial_Teapot - I would be interested in seeing such a discussion if it were to occur. I happen to fall on the pro-state sovereignty side of things which invariably would make me a racist and pro-slavery, as that is what modern political discourse of federalism has become. So, I would be interested in seeing someone else make the case. Plus, I don’t have to dust off any books.
@The_ATM - @cmdr_keen - @Celestial_Teapot - You’re more than welcome to have that debate here in the comments. As far as I know, there is no length limit on comments.
@The_ATM - According to Scalia’s originalism jurisprudence, the meaning of legislation should be limited to how its words were understand at the time it was written.
(1) Scalia had publicly said that the equal protection clause shouldn’t apply to women and gays (at least, not as broadly as Court majorities had ruled). He would argue that in 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was drafted, no one understood “equal protection” to extend to women and gays. The understood context, at the time, were former slaves.
(2) Scalia would make a similar argument for substantive due process– extention of the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause to guarentee and protect fundamental rights. More specifcally, Scalia would say that in 1868, no one would have imagined “due process” to extend to privacy and abortion. The “due process” language also shows up in the Fifth Amendmnt, and at the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights, none of the founders had abortion in mind.
Scalia says that while expansive reading of the Fourteenth Amendment may lead to good results– after all, who isn’t for the rigths of women, minorities, and gays– it isn’t in the role of judges to decide. To take give judge expansive power in judicial interpretation is to open the door for judges to legislate from the bench.
If there is need for more rights and more protections, then he says that it needs to be passed as legislation by congress or enshrined as a new amendment by the nation.
cmdr_keen could probably give sharp historical arguments for limited readings of the Fourteenth Amendment, but this is the spirit of the Scalia school of originalism. I think Clarence Thomas (who I like a lot less) reasons his rulings much the same way.
@Celestial_Teapot - I guess I was more specifically referring to the circumstances in which the Reconstruction Amendments were passed. I have always had the impression that the Civil War was a bad policy decision on both sides. Slavery was on it’s way out in the longer term, war or no war. 700k dead… think of all of the social and economic progress lost, just as in all wars.