The original federal charter

OK, here's how its normally done:

Person1: Makes wild-assed statement including generalities that are passed off as fact.

Person2: Refutes WAS with specific counterexample, thereby conclusively demonstrating WAS was, indeed, not a fact.

Here's what happens in a BeeP thread:

BeeP: Makes wild-assed statement including generalities that are passed off as fact.

Other IWETHEYer: Refutes WAS with specific counterexample, thereby conclusively demonstrating WAS was, indeed, not a fact.

BeeP: Changes subject, interjects a varied and sublime mix of invective, red herrings and straw men, which purports to reinforce assertion that WAS is fact.

Other IWETHEYers: Tells BeeP to knock off red herrings, straw men and ignores invective; tells BeeP to get back on subject.

BeeP: Complains that Other IWETHEYer has changed subject when s/he refuted WAS with specific counterexample, thereby conclusively demonstrating WAS was, indeed, not a fact.

Rinse. Repeat.

Now that I understand how that peculiar variant of BeeP Rhetoric works, I (and others here) can be forwarned and forarmed.

The question before the court was whether the Constitution obliged them to make that decision. The justices do not have the right to make a free choice about what is right or wrong. They have the responsibility of deciding how the existing Constitution, statutes, and precedents oblige them to decide.

When you say that they had no right to make that decision, you are saying that their judgement is wrong. This is not an entirely unreasonable position. Of the 9 highly trained jurors deciding that day, 2 agreed with you. However the other 7 decided that the justices were obligated to make that decision, and therefore making that decision could not have been an extension of their power.

Cheers,
Ben

Post #181,471 by bepatient 10/28/04 1:50:21 PM Reply	The original federal charter Federal gubmint had no right to override the states on this issue. By ruling at the fed level, the elimination of the state laws was an expansion of federal power. >that< is the big government I'm discussing. Its the fed putting its nose in places its not supposed to be. Not too hard to understand is it? If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #181,474 by inthane-chan 10/28/04 1:53:03 PM Reply	Except that it was. [link\|http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/\|http://caselaw.lp.fi...tion/amendment04/] All I want for my birthday is a new President!
Post #181,477 by bepatient 10/28/04 1:55:47 PM 10/28/04 2:05:54 PM Reply	As with any good warm-up Stretching is essential ;-) Added post edit... Decision was argued on 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th and 14th btw. 9th is most applicable IMO. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient] Edited by bepatient Oct. 28, 2004, 02:05:54 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #181,509 by ben_tilly 10/28/04 2:54:17 PM Reply	Supporting Bill's original statement All of the amendments were not part of the original federal charter. Furthermore when they were added to the original federal charter, they were only restrictions on the federal government, not various state governments. Cheers, Ben I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
Post #181,481 by jb4 10/28/04 2:03:55 PM Reply	Oh, you mean like the 2000 election... ...where the Federal government "[put] its nose in places its not supposed to be." Which you roundly hailed at the time, and still do. You mean that Big Government? jb4 shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub* + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf.* BULLSHIT
Post #181,488 by bepatient 10/28/04 2:22:29 PM Reply	Find one I've said the decision made no difference and it didn't. Didn't hail it to my knowledge. You could, of course, produce a post number to back that claim...but I doubt it. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #181,494 by jb4 10/28/04 2:33:46 PM Reply	Result not important, the action is! Please try to stay on topic during any one of these threads, OK? Especially during the workweek, as I only eat Red Herring on alternate Saturdays. jb4 shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub* + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf.* BULLSHIT
Post #181,499 by bepatient 10/28/04 2:38:05 PM Reply	Why are you blaming me? You changed the subject. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #181,519 by jb4 10/28/04 3:42:48 PM Reply	It's clear now, you don't understand basic rhetoric! OK, here's how its normally done: Person1: Makes wild-assed statement including generalities that are passed off as fact. Person2: Refutes WAS with specific counterexample, thereby conclusively demonstrating WAS was, indeed, not a fact. Here's what happens in a BeeP thread: BeeP: Makes wild-assed statement including generalities that are passed off as fact. Other IWETHEYer: Refutes WAS with specific counterexample, thereby conclusively demonstrating WAS was, indeed, not a fact. BeeP: Changes subject, interjects a varied and sublime mix of invective, red herrings and straw men, which purports to reinforce assertion that WAS is fact. Other IWETHEYers: Tells BeeP to knock off red herrings, straw men and ignores invective; tells BeeP to get back on subject. BeeP: Complains that Other IWETHEYer has changed subject when s/he refuted WAS with specific counterexample, thereby conclusively demonstrating WAS was, indeed, not a fact. Rinse. Repeat. Now that I understand how that peculiar variant of BeeP Rhetoric works, I (and others here) can be forwarned and forarmed. jb4 shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub* + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf.* BULLSHIT
Post #181,535 by bepatient 10/28/04 4:40:35 PM Reply	Interesting That you were the one making the wild-assed generalization that started this tangent...and then you changed the subject...yet you are blaming me for all of these things. I'm honored to be such a focus of your delusional reality. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #181,532 by ben_tilly 10/28/04 4:29:05 PM Reply	Then you are making a judgement The question before the court was whether the Constitution obliged them to make that decision. The justices do not have the right to make a free choice about what is right or wrong. They have the responsibility of deciding how the existing Constitution, statutes, and precedents oblige them to decide. When you say that they had no right to make that decision, you are saying that their judgement is wrong. This is not an entirely unreasonable position. Of the 9 highly trained jurors deciding that day, 2 agreed with you. However the other 7 decided that the justices were obligated to make that decision, and therefore making that decision could not have been an extension of their power. Cheers, Ben I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
Post #181,538 by bepatient 10/28/04 4:50:06 PM Reply	Not the first time that the fed used itself to extend its own power and it won't be the last. Its not supposed to work that way...but it does. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]

Welcome to IWETHEY!