SuperJerk

^ See that? Its an up arrow. If you push "shift" and the "6" button at the same time, you can make one too. I've conceded arguments to MikeSC before. I've conceded arguments to Anglesault before. Does that still make me a brick wall? No, it just means they're better at making convincing arguments than you. Quit blaming others for your own short-comings. I'd argue that most 18 year olds' brains aren't fully developed enough to know what they were doing either, but you got to draw the line somewhere. There's not a lot of difference between a 17 and an 18 year old, but since society has already been using 18 as the age where you are legally an adult, that's a good place to have the line drawn.

Like NoCalMike said, no one is actually trying to get it taken off. I'm just saying that in my opinion it should be there. Am I willing to do anything other than have an anonymous discussion with a half dozen strangers to have it removed? No. Were I a Supreme Court justice or a member of Congress and this case came before me, I'd act to have it removed, but in all honesty of course I realize that having it there matters very little Yes, that is a good point...I'll admit. I would think that the same rules of Constitutionality apply to observances made by the Congress as federal laws, but your exception might actually be valid.

Yes, it does. Since it is the official national motto, it tells what the basic principle of the country is. They are saying our basic principle is to trust God, which is a declaration of religious faith. By making a religious statement a basic principle, you are in effect endorsing monotheism (which is the same thing as establishing that monotheism is the official religion of the state). Now, I'm not deluded enough to think that this is on par with the establishment of the Church of England, but it is along the same lines. I fail to see why this is so controversial. As mottos go, its a pretty stupid one. Nothing about this country leads me to beleive that its people or government trust God.

My problem with his argument isn't that I can't see the difference between judicial activism and judicial review. My problem with his argument is that I can see how a strict constructionist using the definition of judicial review he gave could STILL find the law unconstitutional given the wording of the 8th Amendment, whereas he does not. Just because my posts are written in an easier-to-read format, doesn't make my arguments any less valid. I want EVERYONE to be able to read my posts, not just the elite few who have taken class after class of political science or law. I've posted in the past with these long diatribes featuring long definitions and multiple examples...but what's the point? If I can say what I want to say with a few words, then I've done my job. I don't feel the urge to over-analyze things just to impress people with my vocabulary. Yes, his post was a brilliant use of examples and logic...but you know what? He hasn't done any better of a job convincing you that you're wrong than I have. See, you're an economist (or something) by trade. You feel like its a badge of honor to use 100 words to explain something when 10 would do. I'm a high school social studies and special education teacher. I look for the simplest way possible to explain something complicated. And you do realize that arrow was pointing at your OWN avatar, don't you?

Most of Trip's injuries are due to the fact he's carrying too much bulk for his frame (i.e. various muscle tears he's had in the last few years including the quad tear). The only injuries I can think of that were actually ring-related (direct result of accidents while performing) were the bone chips in his arm from Undertaker and the RVD-caused throat injury.

I'd more than willingly nail either woman, but I'd rather get with/look at Trish. More Trish ass...

Why not? Like I said, the Constitution never specifies number. Besides, how many religions are we really talking about here? Are you counting Christianity once, or are you breaking it down into its many denominations? Technically, aren't Islam, Christianity, and Judism three forms of the same religion, since they all claim to worship the same God? And wouldn't someone who beleives in God, but not in the particular dogma of those 3, be technically following the same God? Good thing the Constitution does not specify number! I'd hate to see a court try to sort out just how many religions a government can endorse. We're better off just not acknowledging any of them, and let people believe what they want without the government interfering. That IS what the First Amendment tells us to do, after all. Yes, I am aware of this. I'm also aware of how people in England were persecuted for not beleiving in what the state told them to. What I'm doing is taking a principle put forward by the founding fathers and applying it to its logical conclusion. The founding fathers had a lot of good ideas, but often had trouble seeing their full implications (the whole "all men are created equal" thing comes to mind).

Way to invalidate an entire field of social science, Mike. Do you also wish to invalidate other fields that disagree with your points of view, or will be able to admit maybe they know something you don't? The 10th Amendment only applies to things not listed elsewhere in the Constitution. Since cruel and unusual punishment is dealt with specfically in the 8th Amendment, the Supreme Court does have jurisdiction here. My understanding is that McCain/Feingold uses some of the same loopholes to violate the First Amendment that the FCC uses. And has McCain/Feingold been upheld by the Supreme Court?

You guys seem to be saying its wrong for the Constitution to endorse one religion, but okay for it to endorse a group of them. The Constitution never specifies number, does it? No.

Bullshit. If a law is passed that plainly violates a constitutional provision, then EVERYONE should be able to agree it needs to be overturned, regardless of Constitutional interpretation. There HAVE BEEN unanimous Supreme Court decisions, you know. If some state passed a law that said that newspapers had to be screened by a government agency before it could be published, it would be ruled unconstitutional in a heartbeat. Why? It violates the First Amendment. Everyone can agree on this. If you want to convince me that the founders would be okay with executing 16 year olds, THEN maybe you could convince me that the practice does not violate cruel and unusual punishment as they intended it to mean. Regardless of that, however, to not take into consideration what we now know about human psychology when deciding if the practice violates cruel and unusual punishment is irrational. Hiding behind the founding fathers, and saying because THEY didn't know something WE'RE not allowed to use it as the basis for coming to a conclusion is a slippery slope I don't think you want to be on. Were I actually doing that, I would not be quoting you and making counterpoints. Quit trying to confuse the issue by attacking me personally, rather than sticking to the topic at hand.

It'll be interesting to see how many CBS news reporters, editors, and producers jump ship in the coming months. It paraphrase Ross Perot, there'll be a giant sucking sound of jobs going to cable.

I've already answered this.

According to this woman, she had nothing to do with that, and she's just a scapegoat. I'm interested to know who actually made the decision to ignore evidence that the documents could be forgeries.

And those words have not forced you to practice religion. This isn't about ME. Those words didn't have to force me to practice religion in order to violate the First Amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Making the official motto "In God We Trust" is government recognition of a religious deity, which is a LAW made by CONGRESS that ESTABLISHES a RELIGION. With that motto, our government made monotheism (in all its forms) the official state religion. (Since the term "God" usually only refers to the religious deity of Judeo-Chrisitian tradition, someone might also argue that the specific use of the word "God" is government endorsement of the Judeo-Chrisitian deity.) By removing it, monotheists will still have every right to recognize their deity, but will only not be able to use official U.S. Government property to do it.

You have yet to explain how what the Supreme Court did was judicial activism, rather than judicial review, other than repeatedly defining judicial activism for us. Simply put, if you've actually made the connection between judicial activism and the Supreme Court's ruling, I sure don't see it. My argument style is simple: -state a premise. -provide facts. -explain how the facts support the premise. I've done this every step of the way, so I don't know why you're complaining. I'm not confusing anything. He's repeated tried to say that what the Supreme Court did was judicial activism, while I argue that its simply judicial review. In my opinion, the Supreme Court's decision should be satisfactory to either schools of interpretation given that the term "cruel and unusual punishment" is actually used in the 8th Amendment. Oh, I'M SORRY. I didn't see the sign on the board that said "lawyer's only". Like I said, my argument style is simple: -state a premise. -provide facts. -explain how the facts support the premise. That's more than the rest of you fuckers seem to be able to do most of the time.

Yeah, that'd work today because there is an amendment explicitly against it. Not a terribly good example there. It was a hypothetical situation designed to illustrate how the "will of the people" can and should be subservient to people's rights. Of course it would never actually happen.

*marks the fuck out* Indeed. Now, if can only REMEMBER to watch. Why do a #1 Contender's match on Velocity? Will the title shot be on Smackdown or at Wrestlemania? (Mania deserves a good one-on-one cruiser match.)

Man, did you ever miss my point. Let me clarify. If the "will of the people" decided TODAY that it wanted slavery, the Courts would step in and overturn that law based on the 13th Amendment. The Constitution and its amendments exist not just to provide a blueprint of government action, but also to protect the rights of the people. According to the Supreme Court, allowing those executions violated the 8th Amendment. Thus, they not only have the duty, but the responsibility, to overturn laws which violate the Constitution and its amendments. That is judicial review. What happened in this case, which you are arguing against, was judicial review, according to the definition you just gave. And yet you're still arguing they had no right to do it. Thus, you are arguing against judicial review.

Wow...I post articles about bipartisan cooperation and potential power shifts and you guys make jokes about a 38 year old car accident.

I've heard Triple H refer to himself as "The Franchise" before. Then again, Triple H rips off a LOT of people. WWF ripped of a LOT of stuff from ECW, as well.

Ah, yes...the "will of the people". So, if the will of the people was to have slavery, that'd be okay? No, because we have a Constitutional Amendment which outlaws slavery, just like we have a Constitutional Amendment that outlaws cruel and unusual punishment. The Supreme Court is merely exercising its duty in enforcing the Constitution. Ever heard of the 9th Amendment?

The nature and composition of the political alliances forged by those in power directly effects which ideas get fair hearings, and which ideas are abandoned. So, yeah, how the Democrats and Republicans see Bush is relevant.

Mike...Mike...Mike... The words "In God We Trust" are no mere mention of the word "God". Look at the three words around it. There's no question that's an endorsement of religious faith. And removing all four of those words from money isn't going to keep anyone from practicing their religion.

Not everyone's as well educated as you are.

I'm not posting this because I agree with all of it, I'm just throwing it out there for the sake of someone presenting a different perspective.