SuperJerk

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.

Awesome. Somewhere a 12 year old boy is getting some really messed up ideas about women.

credit: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7120284/site/newsweek/

credit: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/wo...ack=1&cset=true

I like that idea, also.

But wasn't the whole point of Taboo Tuesday that it was unpredictable? If the WWE picks the title contender, it becomes just another PPV. I think the mistake was that there was no sense that the title might change hands.

Ricky Steamboat needs a DVD. Seriously.