Comment which is why... (Score 1) 1276
We have a representative republic instead of a Democracy.
Referencing the Founding Fathers' individual beliefs and opinions is illogical.
Wrong. It's quite logical as they were the ones who created the document that (in theory) governs us to this day. Therefore it is logical that we understand their beliefs and opinions in order to understand the constitution they wrote.
We have a democracy...
Wrong again. We have a representative republic...at least in theory. In practice we are nearing an elected dictatorship.
We have voting and majority rule...
Wrong a third time. We do have voting...but majority rule rarely decides anything in congress where anyone can "filibuster" or stop a bill from a vote simply by putting their name down on paper as such.
Madison, Jefferson, Hamilton, and others had many beliefs, and often ended up disagreeing with each other. That's why the Constitutional Convention took months to write a relatively short document. That's why the US Constitution is full of compromises.
3 strikes and yet you aren't out. This statement is very insightful. It helps to explain a great many things in the constitution and it directly contradicts your statement that it is illogical to reference the beliefs and opinions of the founders. Half the stuff they put in there is because the smaller states were scared spitless that the larger ones would use their majority to impose their will on the minority. Sound familiar?
Interestingly enough, as originally designed, the federal government had only one part that was democratically elected. The US House of Representatives. That was the body that was supposed to be the direct voice of the general population. The Senate was the voice of the state governments (which in turn answered to the people of those states). The President was elected via Electors who answered to the states and the Vice President was the person who had the 2nd most electoral votes, regardless of party and the Supreme Court was provided as a means to balance power between Congress and the President.
I don't agree, first because we can no longer reasonably assume the government is always truthful in its allegations and statements.
The constitution was written because the founders assumed government could not be trusted with power. This is why government must *prove* a case against a free citizen beyond reasonable doubt. You assume the government is wrong until they prove otherwise. If you ever assume government is right, you're in trouble.
It's EXACTLY the same thing if they know you have a dead body in your garage they can get a warrant to force you to unlock the garage.
No it isn't. To continue your analogy of a dead body, they can get a warrant that allows them to search your garage. If you don't open it for them, they then can break in and conduct their search. To apply this to the laptop scenario, the government indeed had a search warrant for the laptop and it was turned over by the defendant. She, in no way, can be compelled to unlock it or do anything else to it but in retrospect, the government would have the right to break into it. In trying to force the defendant to open it, the government has stated that they can't or won't break into it for fear of damaging possible evidence. That's their problem, not the defendant's problem.
[IANAL] I agree w/ the appeals court's decision here. Forcing the defendant to unlock and/or decrypt her laptop would be forcing her to provide evidence against herself thus violating her 5th amendment rights.
Hear Hear! Well said. I say the same about race as well. The more it is focused on, the more it will remain a problem. Stop taking race into consideration in any way. If you continue to give consideration(positive or negative) to someone based on their race (any race), you are promoting racism by definition.
It's much the same with gender with the exception that a few jobs requiring physical strength (fire-fighter for example) are more difficult for the average female to perform (such as having to lift an unconscious person as dead-weight and carry them out of a burning building. Most women just don't have the strength to do it. If they show they have the strength, then more power to them).
Bunch of hypocrites they all are.
So are the Democrats. If you are going to make these comments, be an equal-opportunity commenter.
It seems that nothing but evil comes out of washington DC anymore.
Agreed. This is why I am supporting Ron Paul for President. He's the only candidate willing to do what it takes to clean out Washington DC.
I don't like the current screening methodology, or the reasons behind it. If I have to go through it, then Rand and his dad have to go through it, too.
1. You shouldn't have to go through it. It violates the 4th and 10th amendments for starters
2. Rand Paul did, in fact, go through it. That was the entire point of the article.
Rand probably called a corporate contributor and just walked out the other exit onto the tarmac, and into a private jet so that he could make it in on time-- who knows, maybe flying into a neary AFB.
You obviously didn't read the article. Senator Paul did not make it to his session on time. There was no private plane. He was rebooked on a later flight and passed screening the second go round.
By the way, the Constitution guarantees US Representatives and US Senators right of travel to and from legislative business w/o being subject to arrest...so yes, they do have a few special rules that don't apply to the rest of us.
"Ada is the work of an architect, not a computer scientist." - Jean Icbiah, inventor of Ada, weenie
