cj001f Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 Hmmmmm, a constitutional law expert says this is NOT a violation of the constitution. But then cj and distel may have some sort of training beyond that of the experts??? There's only one constitutional expert that matters - the supreme court. And they passed the buck when it went to them - we'll see when it comes up again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 Guantanamo Bay, where the US Government imprisions "enemy combatants" without charging them with a crime, without allowing access to a lawyer, without even acknolwedging that that person is being held there. Pretty much withholding every protection that the US Constitution affords anyone under legal prosecution. Â A liberal democrat by the name of Roosevelt did a hell of a lot worse than Bush - and to our own people - Japanese Americans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted November 9, 2004 Author Share Posted November 9, 2004 Here's some pertinent reading: US Corporations and the Nazis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 Here's some pertinent reading: US Corporations and the Nazis  The excesses of the Nazi regime were enabled and fertilized by dehuminization of the German people through years of suffering imposed by war (WWI), and the victors' subsequent treatment of the vanquished (Treaty of Versailles). This analogy based on corporations and corporate power is bogus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted November 9, 2004 Author Share Posted November 9, 2004 The crimes committed by the nazis could would not have been possible without eager corporate involvement. For example, the german chemical firms Tesch/Stabenow and Degesch that made Zyklon B (hydrogen cyanide) for fumigation under license from I.G. Farben, continued to supply it for the purpose of exterminating the jews. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
klenke Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 Now it wants to change the Constitution by amendment or by interpretation. Brian, the Constitution is now, has always been, and will always be a malleable and alterable document subject to interpretation by both viewpoints toward their own ends. That's what it is. The document initially had 10 "amendments" (back then only referred to as the Bill or Rights). Now, last I checked, there are 27. So that's 17 'changes' or 'add ons' to the document in 200+ years. Albeit, I do admit most of these amendments are for government workings (protocols for the Executive Branch, etc.). The funny thing about the Constitution is that it has to change (be fixed) to fit the times. It was changed in 1870 so that former slaves could vote. But women were still not allowed to vote. Another amendment (XIX) was passed in 1920 for that.  And yet, I agree, it can't or shouldn't be used as a tool to advance an agenda that is not congruent with the meaning of the document. For me, an example would be an amendment banning gay marriage. I don't think or want an amendment for something like that, even though I admit there should be some sanctity to the meaning of 'marriage.' Call gay marriage by another name (legal unions, perhaps) affording more or less all the same rights and you can keep the meaning of marriage intact. This could appeal to both sides, as it would really just be semantics if the protections, rights, and benefits are the same for both. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted November 9, 2004 Author Share Posted November 9, 2004 I agree with you on Gay Marriage. It's not something that I can support, but neither is it something that merits a Constitutional Amendment. This is exactly the sort of thing that the States should be left to decide. Â I think that the Founding Fathers decided to make it very difficult to amend the Constitution for a very good reason. There needs to be a huge groundswell of support before an amendment is made. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 The "enemy combatants" are not citizens accused of crimes under US laws. They were classified as not being prisoners of war, either, so International Law and treaties could not apply. No law applies. They are people with no due process and no recourse. Jay is wrong about Nazi Germany. Unlike Communist Russia where industry was taken over by the State, in Germany, Industry took over the State. US corporations were complicit, which helps to explain why the US stayed out of the war for so long.  I have yet to see a better illustration of Pope's epigram: "A little learning is a dangerous thing."  I would suggest aquainting oneself with the history of the period prior to pontificating about it. Start with a credible survey of that period in German history, and move on from there.  Of course, it is actually quite reasonable to conclude that decades of historians who have dedicated innumerable lifetimes to dissecting the history of this period, with full access to all of the requisite archival material, interviews with the primary actors, etc had yet to unearth this essential truth that Brian has placed such stock in - "Why - yes! It was...the corporations!" - based on an authority as unimpeachable as an article on the internet.  I am anxious awaiting an elucidation of the present conflict as merely the latest mischief orchestrated by the Z.O.G. - substantiated by an equally impeccable source...  Should be fascinating. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
selkirk Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 I still haven't quite figured out why everyone is so worked up about "gay marriage". It seems to me the people who are the most against it are the most strongly religious, and as far as most religions are concerned "marriage" is something that can only happen in a church, and be peformed by a minister. Â Where as in the eyes of the government, marriage is only a contract, with certain rights bestowed and certain benefits under the law. I haven't really heard anyone argue that the rights and priviliges under the law shouldn't extend to same sex couples, but heaven forbid we let them "marry"??? wtf? Do they just not understand that civil "marriage" and religious "marriage" are two wholly different entities that entail the same legal status, if your religion doesn't recognize same sex marriage so be it, but why should any couple be prevented from joining in the eyes of the law? It seems that in all reality same sex couples could already establish the same "legal contract" (health care decisions, property, inheritances, etc) and are already extended many of the same benefits (health care, though not tax breaks yet) it would just be royal pain in the ass to go through the lawyers and the documents to do it, when we have this handy little institution available, where you swear in front of a judge or a minister and it's automatic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 Of course, it is actually quite reasonable to conclude that decades of historians who have dedicated innumerable lifetimes to dissecting the history of this period, with full access to all of the requisite archival material, interviews with the primary actors, etc had yet to unearth this essential truth that Brian has placed such stock in - "Why - yes! It was...the corporations!" - based on an authority as unimpeachable as an article on the internet. ever read The Arms of Krupp? A history of Mercedes-Benz? A history of IG Farben? Major German corporations were an arm of the state JayB! There's a reason a numebr of them were tried as war criminals! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MollyWorld Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 I agree with you on Gay Marriage. It's not something that I can support, but neither is it something that merits a Constitutional Amendment. This is exactly the sort of thing that the States should be left to decide. I think that the Founding Fathers decided to make it very difficult to amend the Constitution for a very good reason. There needs to be a huge groundswell of support before an amendment is made.  Unfortunately, the states aren't always left to decide it. Take Massachusetts for example. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 The "enemy combatants" are not citizens accused of crimes under US laws. They were classified as not being prisoners of war, either, so International Law and treaties could not apply. No law applies. They are people with no due process and no recourse. Jay is wrong about Nazi Germany. Unlike Communist Russia where industry was taken over by the State, in Germany, Industry took over the State. US corporations were complicit, which helps to explain why the US stayed out of the war for so long.  I have yet to see a better illustration of Pope's epigram: "A little learning is a dangerous thing."  I would suggest aquainting oneself with the history of the period prior to pontificating about it. Start with a credible survey of that period in German history, and move on from there.  Of course, it is actually quite reasonable to conclude that decades of historians who have dedicated innumerable lifetimes to dissecting the history of this period, with full access to all of the requisite archival material, interviews with the primary actors, etc had yet to unearth this essential truth that Brian has placed such stock in - "Why - yes! It was...the corporations!" - based on an authority as unimpeachable as an article on the internet.  I am anxious awaiting an elucidation of the present conflict as merely the latest mischief orchestrated by the Z.O.G. - substantiated by an equally impeccable source...  Should be fascinating.  Wow. Now I understand why you are such an authority on the old "passive/aggressive" syndrome and its attendant symptomology!  How are the chains treating you, by the way? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted November 9, 2004 Author Share Posted November 9, 2004 Jay, it is mighty hard to link to a paper book in a library, otherwise I would. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 I still haven't quite figured out why everyone is so worked up about "gay marriage". It seems to me the people who are the most against it are the most strongly religious, and as far as most religions are concerned "marriage" is something that can only happen in a church, and be peformed by a minister. Â That's exactly the issue. People who believe in marriage as a religious sacrament feel that applying the legal (civil) definition is just a stepping stone. Next the ACLU, gay activists, and the government will try to force churches to change their policies on marriage. Â Personally, I think it would help to change the name "marriage" to something like "civil union" on the legal/civil side of the equation, keeping it a state's right of course. I think the resistance to the issue would fall away much more quickly if this were done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 The crimes committed by the nazis could would not have been possible without eager corporate involvement. For example, the german chemical firms Tesch/Stabenow and Degesch that made Zyklon B (hydrogen cyanide) for fumigation under license from I.G. Farben, continued to supply it for the purpose of exterminating the jews. Â The corporations' involvement was a symptom of the illness, not the root cause of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 (edited) - Edited November 9, 2004 by cj001f Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 The crimes committed by the nazis could would not have been possible without eager corporate involvement. For example, the german chemical firms Tesch/Stabenow and Degesch that made Zyklon B (hydrogen cyanide) for fumigation under license from I.G. Farben, continued to supply it for the purpose of exterminating the jews. Â The corporations' involvement was a symptom of the illness, not the root cause of it. Â Amen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 The corporations' involvement was a symptom of the illness, not the root cause of it. Amen. Ahh yes - the right at its best. Subversion of the rights of the individual to a megalomaniac massive organisation is fine, as long as it's called a "corporation" and not a "state". Is a corporation still a corporation if it runs the government? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted November 10, 2004 Share Posted November 10, 2004 Ahh yes - the right at its best. Subversion of the rights of the individual to a megalomaniac massive organisation is fine, as long as it's called a "corporation" and not a "state". Is a corporation still a corporation if it runs the government? Â When the state is a corporation, that is called Communism, and that is the system of government preferred by people of your political leanings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted November 10, 2004 Share Posted November 10, 2004 When the state is a corporation, that is called Communism, and that is the system of government preferred by people of your political leanings. You don't know beans about my politics %*&^wit avatar. I'm for freedom from opression; I don't particularly discriminate whether it's a state or company - because nowadays the two are almost interchangeable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted November 10, 2004 Share Posted November 10, 2004 You don't know beans about my politics %*&^wit avatar. I'm for freedom from opression; I don't particularly discriminate whether it's a state or company - because nowadays the two are almost interchangeable. Â keep sipping that kool-aid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted November 10, 2004 Share Posted November 10, 2004 keep sipping that kool-aid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted November 10, 2004 Author Share Posted November 10, 2004 Shut up with the kool-aid shit. We aren't kowtowing to some Jim Jones cult figure. Quite the opposite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted November 10, 2004 Share Posted November 10, 2004 Shut up with the kool-aid shit. We aren't kowtowing to some Jim Jones cult figure. Quite the opposite. Â It's a metaphor. I see the same paranoid, delusional, irrational, conspiracy-theory infused, group-think from so many on the left that one often sees in cults. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted November 10, 2004 Author Share Posted November 10, 2004 It's rather strange that Scott Harpell has been scarce lately. What do you think? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.