Thread: Any Globalists here?

Geesh! You can't vote for Illegal loving Democrats just to get back at Bush! Everyone needs to vote for people that are ready to enforce our laws and close the border down!

I'd also add. If you are considering or like to donate politically. I suggest you donate directly to your candidate and not the party.

Originally Posted by DD

Originally Posted by Brian503a

I would expect to hear that phrase coming out of Al Gore's mouth.

Al Gore can kiss my hind end. The liberals seem godless to me, and anymore I think they want us to believe there is no creator......regardless.....I do believe the document to be very important and principle based.

I come from the Cherokee Nation.......they are the "Principle People".

I would suggest using different wording in the future unless you want to be lumped with Al Gore. That is unless you both deep down believe the same thing about the Constitution.



http://archives.thedaily.washington.edu ... ichey.html

Constitution has no lungs


Richey Kemmling


One of the major issues in this presidential election year is the future of the Supreme Court. There is a possibility that the next president may appoint up to 3 new justices to the court. Why is this so important? The Supreme Court is becoming without a doubt the most powerful branch of government. It can throw laws out without a possibility of veto or it can make legislative laws through its decisions without popular vote.
The two major party candidates have two very different sets of criteria for judges they will appoint. George W. Bush says he will appoint "strict-constructionists" which means that his appointments would view the Constitution more literally. Al Gore has said he will make appointments of judges who believe the Constitution should be a "living, breathing document". This means that his judges would interpret the Constitution as an evolving document that changes with the times.

That is what concerns me about Al Gore. The whole argument that the Constitution should be interpreted as a living, breathing document is completely undermining to our democracy.

The Constitution is a contract from "we the people" to the government. It tells us what our liberties and rights are, and what we should expect from our government. But Mr. Gore's "breathing" Constitution means that rights and privileges can be taken away from us by an unelected federal judiciary. For example, in the case Mapp v. Ohio, the Supreme Court allowed evidence into a trial that was obtained by a clearly unlawful search. It was determined that since the defendant was guilty anyway that it was ok to violate his Constitutional rights. In Kramer v. Union Free School District, "breathing" judges declared that voting privileges could only be given to those with certain property rights. This was a clear violation of equal representation but the court felt that it was prudent.

Actual judges who believe in a living, breathing Constitution eliminate rights and liberties through their liberal interpretations. Putting politics and views aside, probably one of the worst judicial decisions was the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. The court was then composed of many "breathing" judges and came up with a decision that had no Constitutional reference. In it, the majority was able to legislate the three terms of pregnancy and when and where the government can step in. Where does it say that in the Constitution? Nowhere. They took the phrase "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, and property without due process" to mean the government cannot regulate abortion in the first term. It can, however, have some restrictions on the second term and definitely in the third term. This decision had no Constitutional basis and took away the rights of the states and people to vote on abortion laws. A common misconception is that overturning Roe v. Wade would outlaw all abortions. It would not. It would simply let states vote on whether abortion should be legal or not. If Roe were overturned, 25 states would still have legalized abortion laws on their books.

Another case where "breathing" judges attacked the Constitution was in the case of Korematsu v. United States. In this case, an American citizen was put into a prison camp and punished because of his Japanese background. The "breathing" judges decided that because this occurred during wartime, the Constitution could take a back seat. Unfortunately these judges were in the majority. Someone who takes the Constitution as a sacred document would have decided that the laws of equality in the 14th Amendment apply to everyone all the time-no exceptions. The "breathing" judge crowd just doesn't see it that way.

Perhaps the worst part of the "living, breathing document" argument is that it gives the judiciary enormous power to legislate and veto. The Constitution states that the legislative branch shall make laws and that the executive branch can veto or enforce the law. But today these activist "breathing" judges can throw out laws because they don't like them or disagree with them personally. They treat the Constitution as out of date, which therefore, makes the rules and rights inadequate for our generation.

Judges are not elected. They are not representatives. They are supposed to be independent, non-biased, interpreters. They are supposed to decide if a case violates a Constitutional right or if it does not. They are not supposed to say they think the authors meant something else or that it is unpopular. Once again, "breathing" judges are not good judges of Constitutional law.

Al Gore's appointment of "living, breathing document" judges would be completely detrimental to our Constitution. Imagine if umpires in baseball could interpret the rules as "living, breathing rules". The strike zone could then be from the toes to the hair. Two outs an inning would be okay if they felt the other team was losing by too much. An error could be taken out and a replay could be instituted because it was not what the framers of baseball would have wanted.

The Constitution is a sacred contract between the people and the government; not a living, breathing document. Frankly, if the Constitution were alive it would be royally off at some of these "breathing" judges. In fact it would have some strong words for people on the court like Justice John Paul Stevens as to the abuse of its own words. The phrase "where does it say that?" would be its favorite question. But anyway, back to reality.

The Constitution gives us rights and responsibilities. It is a set of rules that do not change over time unless amended by a super majority of Americans. Al Gore wants to appoint judges that use their own personal opinion to make decisions instead of the Constitutional laws. George W. Bush wants to appoint judges that call a strike a strike, and an out an out. So this November, vote for upholding the Constitution instead of "breathing" judicial opinion.

The God rhetoric they spew is lacking in sincerity, and is strictly to win votes from the suckers who fall prey to it.

Brian, I think even the suckers are "seeing the light" these days. You can fool people for just so long before they start realizing it. And I'm about convinced that our education system has gone to hell in a handbasket purposefully in order to breed a new generation of sheep. They don't want people smart enough to see through the smoke screens squealing on them. To carry it one step further, perhaps the latest snafus for the retirees and the fact that they are messing over the baby boomers who are about to retire en masse has something to do with the fact that they don't want them to get that medicine that the drug companies keep concocting to make people live forever. Only the stupid people are going to survive-- the ones who will just follow along and believe everything they hear and lack the reasoning to decipher what they see with their own eyes.

I'm a Republican with Reaganomics at heart.

The great Amnesty of 1986 was a big part of that Reganomics....wasn't it?

Originally Posted by Defens

I'm a Republican with Reaganomics at heart.

The great Amnesty of 1986 was a big part of that Reganomics....wasn't it?

It sure was. The first big mistake on raising immigration quotas.

To my shame, I voted for Bush, twice. I voted against the opposition. Both lied. I was a life-long Republican, although I never totally voted party lines. I guess I was an Independent-Republican. No more. I'm an Independent, now.

Ditto

And, yes, Reagan was the first miscreant who gave amnesty to a bunch of criminals who crossed into this country illegally. People were angry then and now that there are ten times as many because he wrote them an invitation, people are ten times as angry.

Ok, a NeoCon Globalist? I don't much care for them simply because they seek to erase my countries borders, culture, etc in the name of bigger profits. NeoCon Globalists have no alligence to any country or cause, they are neither patriots or people of ethical moral conscious. They simply serve their corporate cause no matter how far they have to go beyond any acceptable moral behavior to achieve their profits. No, i don't much like them, in fact i view them as mortal enemies of my country.

I don't much care for them simply because they seek to erase my countries borders, culture, etc in the name of bigger profits. NeoCon Globalists have no alligence to any country or cause, they are neither patriots or people of ethical moral conscious. They simply serve their corporate cause no matter how far they have to go beyond any acceptable moral behavior to achieve their profits

Well said. To them the dollar trumps all else.

DD--glad you're here. If that's you in the picture, you're very beautiful.

Anyway--I'm going to be frank here. I live in Houston Texas and we have been absolutley deluged with illegal aliens and the crime they bring with them.We have knifings, murders, car theft, rape ect on a daily basis and 90%of the time these crimes are committed by Mexicans . I went to see a movie the other day and had to walk through metal detectors and a cadre of police just to get to the auditorium--this movie was part of a Latino Radio station give away and they held the entire pre-movie speel in Spanish. They gave away t-shirts with MEXICO in huge letters on the back. I felt like I was in Mexico.

This is America, or at least it used to be. The Mexicans of yesterday, even ten years ago, assimilated and were generally great to have around. But today things seem to be very different--there is an arrogance that is palpable. Kids today have no clue that metal detectors in public schools didn't exist twenty years ago--it was unheard of.

We are being disrespected. Our laws, our language and our culture. I don't want to merge with Mexico. We have been accomodating and tolerant to the point that we have become doormats.

All anybody wants to talk about is trade and money and commerce and the economy. Well guess what? Money isn't everything--in fact it's nothing if you can't walk the streets at night.

Originally Posted by DD

I'm a Republican with Reaganomics at heart.

You like Reagan? Here's my favorite quote from Reagan:

"A nation without borders is not a nation."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't globalists want to do away with those pesky old anachronistic things we call borders? Don't you think by what he said, that I've quoted above, he would have been against your globalization, pro-illegal, open borders stance? So it seems to me that you may be speaking out of both sides of your mouth when you claim to be supporter of Mr. Reagan's views and perhaps you are nothing more than a troll.

If you want to know how people on these boards feel about globalization, open borders, etc. then just do a search of the archives and read some of the previous posts.