So tell me Stalin, did the drafters of the Constitution believe the US should have jurisdiction over a Taiwan citizen who sends spam from Taiwan to the US in violation of US law?
Did they believe that online sales of goods should be subject to sales taxes?
Did they believe it should be legal to sell a device used for making copies of CDs and DVDs for personal fair use purposes?
How did they feel about P2P file sharing, airport security, telephone wiretaps, or VoIP telephony?
And, as I noted before, some of the drafters “owned” slaves, didn’t they? Does that mean that we should allow slavery today?
a lot of europeans think themselves more intelligent and sophisticated than americans. so much so that they like to lecture americans on what they should do with absolutely no understanding of what goes on in america. and when americans don’t do what the europeans want, they dismiss them as idiotic morons. can you get any more arrogant?
[quote=“Mother Theresa”]So tell me Stalin, did the drafters of the Constitution believe the US should have jurisdiction over a Taiwan citizen who sends spam from Taiwan to the US in violation of US law?
Did they believe that online sales of goods should be subject to sales taxes?
Did they believe it should be legal to sell a device used for making copies of CDs and DVDs for personal fair use purposes?
How did they feel about P2P file sharing, airport security, telephone wiretaps, or VoIP telephony?
[/quote]
but none of these are constitutional issues. all the powers involved with these associated issues were delegated to congress. :help:
How can you say that about the Sup Ct Justices, Tigerman, you’re a lawyer. I understand the point you’re trying to make, and I agree that different people will view military actions or tax cuts differently, but judges are supposed to be neutral and unbiased, right?[/quote]
There is no rule in the US against any person having any bias. It is only in their decision making that we expect justices to be neutral, i.e., to follow the law and not their biases.
It would be just as wrong as liberal judges deciding cases based on their “liberal” values or perspective.
But, that isn’t what I meant. Comrade Stalin is correct… I meant a strict constitutionalist.
[quote=“Flipper”][quote=“Mother Theresa”]So tell me Stalin, did the drafters of the Constitution believe the US should have jurisdiction over a Taiwan citizen who sends spam from Taiwan to the US in violation of US law?
Did they believe that online sales of goods should be subject to sales taxes?
Did they believe it should be legal to sell a device used for making copies of CDs and DVDs for personal fair use purposes?
How did they feel about P2P file sharing, airport security, telephone wiretaps, or VoIP telephony?
[/quote]
but none of these are constitutional issues. all the powers involved with these associated issues were delegated to congress. :help:[/quote]
You’re completely wrong. They definitely can be constitutional issues if a lawsuit involving those issues is appealed to the Supreme Court. Congress can pass laws on some of those issues. But lawsuits can arise based on such laws, constitutional rights can be implicated, and it would be up to the Supes to decide whether the law was unconstitutional or not. How did the drafters feel about the DMCA by the way?
[quote=“Comrade Stalin”][quote=“Mother Theresa”]Did they believe that online sales of goods should be subject to sales taxes?
Did they believe it should be legal to sell a device used for making copies of CDs and DVDs for personal fair use purposes?
How did they feel about P2P file sharing, airport security, telephone wiretaps, or VoIP telephony?[/quote]
Since they didn’t have any of those in the 18th Century, I guess we should just trash the Constitution and let the Libs wing it, right? [/quote]
No, in fact I am distressed at how much it has been trashed in recent years. It is a remarkable document and should be treated with extreme respect and deference. That is why it would be so absurd to amend it to ban flag burning or gay marriages (especially the latter, which would be the only amendment adopted in order to deprive citizens of rights, exactly contrary to the Bill of Rights). The Constitution has lasted all these years with so few changes because it has not been used as a political tool, readjusted every time a new administration comes into office and feels like messing with it. But, nor does it make sense to interpret it strictly based on the views of the framers. That is impossible because the world has changed so much, and it is clear one must interpret the language in light of today’s world, today’s technology and today’s broad moral perspective.
Anyway, Constitutional law is fascinating but the discussion has digressed from best/worst of next 4 years.
I agree. And I think a strict constitutionalist would find no reason to ban flag burning or gay marriages. And if Roe v. Wade were to be overturned as an example of improper judicial activism, abortions would not cease to be legally available. The issue would be decided upon by the states (per the 10th amendment). This is as it should be, IMO, the federal government should not fund abortion nor encourage it in any way, nor should the federal government ban abortion, but should leave the issue entirely to the states. If the pro-life folks want to ban abortion nationally, they should be forced to seek a constitutional amendment. Likewise, if the pro-choice folks want abortion to be a national right, they should be forced to seek a constitutional amendment.
Have you ever read The Handmaid’s Tale by Maggie Atwood?
Ahhhh…Gilead…
Here in HK, surprise, surprise, you can watch David Letterman. Last night, his guest was Tom Brokaw, who informed us that the “moral” majority is at 43% of all Americans.
My worst case scenario is right there in Atwood’s novel. I haven’t thought about that book in years. It’s all I can think about now. It won’t be long before the heathens are swinging from the ramparts.
Best case scenario: GWB is impeached and jailed.
I fucking hate George W. Bush. Every time I see his smarmy face I wanna puke.
Or did you know that already?
Okay…so, the Master of Hyperbole strikes again. Given my 2 extreme views, which is more likely?
[color=blue]Meanwhile, back at the Worst Case Scenario Ranch . . . [/color]
The dollar continued its decline in global currency markets yesterday, intensifying worries among some economists that mounting U.S. budget and trade deficits could send the U.S. currency into a tailspin. . .
“As the dust settles after the U.S. elections, the one theme that is developing is the growing recognition [in the markets] of the need for more dollar depreciation,” economists at J.P. Morgan told clients yesterday, citing as one major reason the likelihood that “there will be no serious new policies to trim the U.S. budget deficit.”
[quote=“spook”][color=blue]Meanwhile, back at the Worst Case Scenario Ranch . . . [/color]
The dollar continued its decline in global currency markets yesterday, intensifying worries among some economists that mounting U.S. budget and trade deficits could send the U.S. currency into a tailspin. . . [/quote]
Well, George Soros said he was going to get rid of Bush. Maybe he’s decided to go against the US Dollar the way he did the British Pound back in 1992, the South East Asians in 1997 or the various states comprising the former USSR more recently.
I notice in the “morgue” thread in which you write about John Peel, you imply that you are British.
Why do you care what the U.S. national debt is, or whether the U.S. drills in Alaska? Or about rights for “minorities” in the U.S.? You obviously don’t care about the rights of Arabs to live without repression, and odds are you don’t know a thing about ANWR beyond “there’s oil in that thar tundra!”
Are you looking into becoming a U.S. citizen, perhaps? If not, I fail to see why we should care what you feel would be the best/worst case scenarios for a second Bush term.
Quote
To maposquid
Yes you have correctly guessed that I am British but I don’t think that stops me from having an opinion on the election. Correct me if I’m wrong but I thought this was a place for anyone to post an opinion regardless of nationality, race or sex.
If I came across as an arrogant European than I apologise, that wasn’t my intention. My point is that like it or not what happens in America is very important for the whole world, seeing as it is the only superpower. American debt and a weak dollar have an effect. America’s environmental policies have an effect. Likewise America’s War on terrorism has a huge effect on the world, and I would argue especially on Britain where we have many troops in Iraq. Maybe you’re right and the domestic policies such as abortion, gay rights etc. don’t impinge as much and so I shouldn’t have mentioned them. Fair point.
Although I would have prefered a Kerry win I still hope for the best to happen in America and the world, hence my best case scenario, if it happens it will be a good thing.
So feel free to agree or disagree, oh and for your information I am not planning on becoming a US citizen.
Would you prefer bad things to happen to America and in Iraq just to justify your oppostion against Bush. The election is over. Bush won. Let’s deal with the problems at hand rather than ghoulishly gloating about possible worst-case scenario.
As an American, I don’t feel defensive about non-Americans criticizing my country provided that it’s not just ‘bashing’ so that someone can feel superior. It’s obvious there’s nothing inherently superior about any culture or ethnicity or whatever though ethnocentrism is everywhere. I just wish Americans cared enough about the world to understand WHY Bush is despised. The U.S. has no obligation to make other countries happier or really care what they think about the way we defend our country, but Americans should be more cosmopolitan, not paranoid and puritanical. Clinton, who was a great president, is respected abroad and domestically by many people for a reason even tho Repub’s were frothing at the mouth during his tenure. I really am disappointed in fellow Americans for letting Bush win.
I am lost as well but as long as the Jews get what is coming to them, Spook will be happy no matter how many others go down with them. I am half serious about this.
Spook: Try to think positively and stop being so cynical and negative. You can agree to disagree but let’s hope for the best in Iraq rather than ghoulishly hoping for some sort of “lesson” to teach Bush that we must pretend that America is still living in the late 18th century and get a new quote. The other one if a bit “dated” if you get my drift.
[/quote]