Making Baby Jesus Cry - Page 320

ltl/fb · 09-13-2005, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
This whole thing is a mystery to me. But for some crazy reason these guys think I am their avenue to the administration and they keep bothering me. They want me to email Dr. Rice about this (like that is ever going to happen).

I just wanted to make sure that it was OK to blow them off. Doing want to burn the bridge unless I am sure it can't bite back.

By all means, blow them off.

Replaced_Texan · 09-13-2005, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by baltassoc
But why would SS then be disappointed?

My guess is that Gatti's saying that the quotes would be a little too rich for SS's blood. Right, Gatti?

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) · 09-13-2005, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Captain
Brandeis cites it as the first reported case of slander; I'm afraid they don't seem to have put the 1356 year book on-line yet. But here's the Brandeis article.

Good thing the First Amendment doesn't prevent actions for slander.

Brandeis's right of privacy has little to do with the one used in Griswold and Roe. Given that the colonial churches all were as invasive as Reverand Lovejoy's wife, I'm not expecting anyone to turn much up.

Spanky · 09-13-2005, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
By all means, blow them off.

Thanks. I will do just that. I am going to give them your address so they can talk to you if they have any further concerns.

dtb · 09-13-2005, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
This sentence is a lot more fun if you read "Whorehouse quotes."

No way, dude.

Gattigap · 09-13-2005, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
My guess is that Gatti's saying that the quotes would be a little too rich for SS's blood. Right, Gatti?

Ummmm, not so much.

Wodehouse quotes are beyond our collective ken. SS would be disappointed by their absence.

Whorehouse quotes are well within them. They may well be too rich for SS's blood, yet the lizard seeks them still.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) · 09-13-2005, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
Here is another way of looking at it:

If English courts could just make up rights (that is what common law is - courts just making stuff up) that become permanent.

If these court made up rights could be used later to strike down legislation passed by Parliament.

If these rights were assumed to exist in the Republic after the revolution

Does that not assume that subsequent courts of the Republic could make up more rights that would be adopted by the legal system like in the British system?

These rights could also be used to strike down legislation?

Does that also not assume that strict constructionism is really a philosophy that only applies to civil law systems and not common law systems (like ours)?

Was this what we were supposed to respond to? It seems that you're lacking a distinction between types of rights--namely those that can be granted/abrogated by a simple majority and those that are inalienable, or at least need a supermajority to eliminate. Only the latter are enshrined in constitutions (typically), and only those can be used to strike down "mere" legislation.

Strict construction doesn't require a civil law system if one adheres to the view that only those rights enumerated (perhaps even clearly) in the constitution are ones that are not subject to simple majoritarian abrogation.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) · 09-13-2005, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Occasionally.

But nothing as severe as the rash I got on my dick after bangin' yo momma.

His momma is paigow?

ltl/fb · 09-13-2005, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
Thanks. I will do just that. I am going to give them your address so they can talk to you if they have any further concerns.

ltlfringebenefit@yahoo.com

Do you think fulminations on international law will give them something to chew on? because I may be able to dig some stuff up.

But what is MEK?

dtb · 09-13-2005, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gattigap
Wodehouse quotes are beyond our collective ken. SS would be disappointed by their absence.

As would any thinking person.

Secret_Agent_Man · 09-13-2005, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
(2) wtf is MEK?

They must be talking about the Mujahideen El Khalq (spellings vary) -- which is, I believe a rebel/terrrorist (depending on your perspective) group of Iranian exiles.

This group has been violently opposed to the government of Iran since the Iranian Revolution, more or less, and had been supported and funded by Sadam Hussein for his own reasons. They had thousands of fighters, and some artillery and armor, located in at least one large base in Iraq, and they also ran/run covert ops and intelligence gathering through a network in Iran.

For example, this is the group that publicly blew the whistle on the Iranian government's illegal nuclear program a couple of years ago.

Prior to the invasion of Iraq, the U.S. had cooperated with and/or not opposed the MEK. During the invasion, the MEK stayed in their base and did not fight. After the invasion, they satyed in their bases, but kept their weapons -- in an odd kind of limbo.

After the invasion, the word is that it was decided that we needed Iran's help to stabilize our situation with the Shi'ites, and part of the price that was paid was to shut down the MEK. The bombing of their base (that must be the "Camp Al Sharraf" he refers to) did happen. I don't know if we've handed over the leaders of the MEK to Iran, as it has demanded we do. At a minimum, the Iranians demanded that we compel the MEK to stop cross-border operations, which I think we have done.

S_A_M

Captain · 09-13-2005, 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

Strict construction doesn't require a civil law system if one adheres to the view that only those rights enumerated (perhaps even clearly) in the constitution are ones that are not subject to simple majoritarian abrogation.

A definition of strict constructionism is needed to figure this one out. If by strict constructionism one means interpretation of the constitution based on its four corners, I would contend that the doctrine is one only of idealogues who have not carefully read and wrestled with the document, which is simply too ambiguous and incomplete to allow for such interpretation (e.g., the first amendment does nothing to describe what "freedom of the press" is, but whatever it is, it cannot be abridged). Robert Bork professed to be close to this view, but he basically just dismissed the 9th Amendment as too tough to read.

If strict constructionism means that both rights (of people) and powers (of government) only exist to the extent that there is an explicit basis in the constitution, it gets closer to original intent jurisprudence.

But it could mean other things, too.

So, Mr. Spanky, if you were a strict constructionist, what did you believe that to mean?

Spanky · 09-13-2005, 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
ltlfringebenefit@yahoo.com

Do you think fulminations on international law will give them something to chew on? because I may be able to dig some stuff up.

But what is MEK?

I appreciate the offer of help. I really do, but you should not waste your time with it. Not unless we can figure out a way to bill them.

Unless someone on the board recognizes these guys as someone important I think the casual blow off is the way to go.

Captain · 09-13-2005, 06:36 PM

This is kind of fun, but have some of you really posted 10,000 times?

Secret_Agent_Man · 09-13-2005, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
I appreciate the offer of help. I really do, but you should not waste your time with it. Not unless we can figure out a way to bill them.

Unless someone on the board recognizes these guys as someone important I think the casual blow off is the way to go.

They are university professors, and Foote seems to be a lunatic. Blow him off at your peril, you neo-Trotskyite.

S_A_M