Making Baby Jesus Cry - Page 308

Penske_Account · 09-13-2005, 01:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
No one can google like Paigow.

Heck, you oughta know . . . .

nevermind.

they googled too??!?! I thought it was just plain vanilla.

Oh the humanity!

SlaveNoMore · 09-13-2005, 01:47 AM

Quote:

bilmore
True to some extent, but these were highly practical, empiricist guys. A "right to privacy"? Never woulda happened. But, I havta think that these guys sort of assumed that. "Don't tread on me" sort of implies "get out of my fucking bedroom", doesn't it?

You think? I see no historical evidence of it whatsoever.

bilmore · 09-13-2005, 01:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
they googled too??!?! I thought it was just plain vanilla.

Oh the humanity!

I almost didn't type that, because some practices should just stay private.

Not because the Constitution calls for it, but simply because I think it's right.

Sort of like, a legislative act: if enough people agree with me, then we can vote it in, and everyone has to obey it.

bilmore · 09-13-2005, 01:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
You think? I see no historical evidence of it whatsoever.

You misplace the burden. Show me otherwise before claiming orig intent.

nononono · 09-13-2005, 01:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
True to some extent, but these were highly practical, empiricist guys. A "right to privacy"? Never woulda happened. But, I havta think that these guys sort of assumed that. "Don't tread on me" sort of implies "get out of my fucking bedroom", doesn't it? I think Tom J would have had a fit if the gov agents stopped him from screwing his mistress, or his cute little buddy down the street. Not the job of government, I picture Tom crying.

Er, that's Mr. Jefferson, I believe you mean.

bilmore · 09-13-2005, 01:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by nononono
Er, that's Mr. Jefferson, I believe you mean.

You must have come in after I left last time. Do I know you?

And, yeah, Tom J is Mr Jefferson.

We played stickball together, so I have this familiarity sort of thing . . .

Spanky · 09-13-2005, 01:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Georgia (and the other Southern states) were also, at the time, petrified of the notion of a strong centralized federal government - recall, the Jeffersonians wanted a loose knit of agrarian-centered states, a la the Articles of Confederation - so they were fully satisfied with the protections of the 10th Amendment.

According to the West Wing story (which is all I have got on this) the Georgia legislators were assured that just because the certain rights were outlined in the bill of rights that would not preclude the other rights then in existence that were not listed. The second time I watched the episode I really paid attention. And the conservative guy they were interviewing had no retort for Sam Seaborn's (Rop Lowes) point.

Until someone can demonstrate to me that there is or there is not a common law rights tradition this whole argument is being made with out enough information.

bilmore · 09-13-2005, 02:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
According to the West Wing story (which is all I have got on this) the Georgia legislators were assured that just because the certain rights were outlined in the bill of rights that would not preclude the other rights then in existence that were not listed. The second time I watched the episode I really paid attention. And the conservative guy they were interviewing had no retort for Sam Seaborn's (Rop Lowes) point.

Until someone can demonstrate to me that there is or there is not a common law rights tradition this whole argument is being made with out enough information.

The first part is correct, in a historical way. That was the argument that was made at the time.

You are getting way too much critical information from Sheen. Please tell me that your knowledge of sharia doesn't come from Penn.

(There was an explicit renunciation of "common law" here when all of this went down. It was either listed, or not (except for the political lies about how everything "we all knew was correct" would remain. ) Note that the C gives no weight to prior decisions, nor does it even state that previous history had occurred. It was a tabla blanca, explicitly. There was no common law [EDIT - concerning the Rghts Of Man] as of the date of signing.)

nononono · 09-13-2005, 02:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
You must have come in after I left last time. Do I know you?

And, yeah, Tom J is Mr Jefferson.

We played stickball together, so I have this familiarity sort of thing . . .

No, I don't believe you do. How do you do?

Okay, if you're childhood chums. Just making sure there's no blasphemy going on here.

Spanky · 09-13-2005, 02:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Yes?

Do you have a specific question - or do you need to be told where to Google like paigow?

Yes - spare me. Is there a common law rights tradition in the United States?

If yes, why can't the Supreme Court ad to this tradition?

bilmore · 09-13-2005, 02:05 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by nononono
No, I don't believe you do. How do you do?

Sorry. I thought you might be someone I knew with a new name.

Presumptive of me, I know . . .

bilmore · 09-13-2005, 02:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
Is there a common law rights tradition in the United States?

No. Not before the Reformation.

nononono · 09-13-2005, 02:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
Sorry. I thought you might be someone I knew with a new name.

Presumptive of me, I know . . .

Jesus, what is there, an email alert around here? I've been through this several times already. But no, unless we know each other from somewhere other than here, no.

Spanky · 09-13-2005, 02:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore

You are getting way too much critical information from Sheen. Please tell me that your knowledge of sharia doesn't come from Penn.

Actually it was Rob Lowe which is even scarier.

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
(There was an explicit renunciation of "common law" here when all of this went down. It was either listed, or not (except for the political lies about how everything "we all knew was correct" would remain. ) Note that the C gives no weight to prior decisions, nor does it even state that previous history had occurred. It was a tabla blanca, explicitly. There was no common law [EDIT - concerning the Rghts Of Man] as of the date of signing.)

Really? Did everyone agree there was no Common Law or did just the conservatives?

bilmore · 09-13-2005, 02:18 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
Really? Did everyone agree there was no Common Law or did just the conservatives?

There was this thing about starting a whole new country. Brand new. Not tied down with the old ways, not stuck with the King's old rulings . . . you should read about it. It was called a revolution. It was pretty much a condemnation of the old system, and I've never heard anyone (this is my evidence, which I know is weak) say that they decided only to keep 49.45% of the old legal system.

I understand the idea that they all seemed to follow the hairy hand cases, but this was more of a "this is logical, and so we'll stick to it" approach, then it was a "oh, shit, this is precedent, and we're stuck" feeling.

"Precedent" was a word, then, for "let's see what other treatments this set of circumstances has raised", and not for something that a judge was duty-bound to follow.