daniel larson

*

*

It's the end of the world as we know it.
It's the end of the world as we know it.

The sky is falling the sky is falling, homosexuals have equal rights
to the heterosexuals. What will we do. *

Oh dear lord, again the homosexuals will have equal rights to
the special rights we now enjoy, what will we do, what will we do.

Hysteria is the battle cry of conservatives, and this show bigots
do not change they only change the group they hate. * *

*

yankee

End of the Constitution

Actually, Rob, and Cal, you exposed yourself for the BAD PATRIOT that you really
are, because the Constitution was trashed many years ago, and is only being used
at the convenience of the military leader under martial law, the President:

The Introduction to Senate Report 93-549 (93rd Congress, 1st Session, 1973,
http://www.freedomsite.net/93-549.htm ) summarizes the situation as best as
possible:

"A majority of the people of the United States have lived all of their lives
under emergency rule. . . And, in the United States, actions taken by the
Government in times of great crises have-from, at least, the Civil War-in
important ways, shaped the present phenomenon of a permanent state of national
emergency."

From the research information available, it can be reasonably proven that when
the Southern states walked out of Congress on March 27, 1861, the quorum to
conduct business under the Constitution for the united States of America was
lost. Thus, the only votes that Congress could lawfully take, under
Parliamentary Law, were those to set the time to reconvene, take a vote to get a
quorum, and vote to adjourn and set a date, time, and place to reconvene at a
later time, but instead, Congress abandoned the House and Senate without setting
a date to reconvene. Under the parliamentary law of Congress, when this
happened, Congress became sine die (pronounced see-na dee-a; literally "without
day") and thus when Congress adjourned sine die, it ceased to exist as a lawful
deliberative body, and thus the only lawful, constitutional power that could
declare war was no longer lawful, or in session.

It can also be reasonably proven that the Southern states, by virtue of their
secession from the Union, also ceased to exist sine die, and that some state
legislatures in the Northern bloc also adjourned sine die, and thus, all the
states which were parties to creating the Constitution for the united States of
America ceased to exist. On April 15, 1861, President Lincoln executed the
following executive order "Lincoln Executive Proclamation," and it can also be
reasonably proven that the United States of America have been ruled ever since
by the President under executive powers. It can also be reasonably proven that
when Congress eventually did reconvene, it was reconvened under the military
authority of the Commander-in-Chief and not by Rules of Order for Parliamentary
bodies or by Constitutional Law, thus placing the American people under martial
rule ever since the national emergency declared by President Lincoln.

Thus, the Constitution for the United States of America has subsequently
temporarily ceased being the acknowledged law of the land in many courts, and
the President, Congress, and the courts have unlawfully presumed that they were
free to remake the nation in a new image, whereas, lawfully, no constitutional
provisions were in place which afforded power to any of the actions which were
taken which presumed to place the nation under the new form of control.

President Lincoln knew that his executive orders no longer had any force under
Constitutional Law, and thus he commissioned General Orders No. 100 (April 24,
1863) as a special code to govern his actions under martial law and to justify
the seizure of power, which further extended the laws of the District of
Columbia and which also fictionally implemented the provisions of Article I,
Section 8, Clauses 17-18 of the Constitution beyond the boundaries of
Washington, D.C. and into the several states. General Orders No. 100, also
called the Lieber Instructions and the Lieber Code, have extended The Laws of
War and International Law onto American soil, and the United States government
has become the presumed military conqueror of the people and the land.

Martial rule has been kept secret and has never ended, Lincoln was assassinated
before he could complete the implementation of his plan to constitutionally and
not militarily reform the Southern governments and restore the national
Congress, and the United States of America has ever since been ruled under
Military Law by the Commander of Chief of that military: the President, under
his assumed executive powers and according to the policies of his issued
executive orders.

Constitutional law under the original Constitution for the united States of
America and the Bill of Rights is enforced only as a matter of keeping the
public peace under the provisions of General Orders No. 100 under martial rule,
with the arbitrary application of the Constitution for the united States of
America and the Bill of Rights being under the order of the Commander-in-Chief
of the conquered nation as a method of deception and control of the masses,
instead of still being lawfully in place as the Supreme Law of the land. And
under Martial Law, title is a mere fiction, since all property belongs to the
military except for that property which the Commander-in-Chief may, in his
benevolence, exempt from taxation and seizure and upon which he allows the
"enemy" to reside.


Now, since you do not know the law and the truth in the matter, I wouldn¹t
expect you to understand that America was dead, and became Amerika, many years
ago, and that the recent Supreme Court ruling was actually totally consistent
with true Constitutional law: the right of privacy in one¹s own property. But
you have your own agenda, which is not actually the Constitution as written and
as per the intentions of the Founders, but your own religious interpretation of
a theocracy that you see the United States becoming.

But the Constitution is dead, America is dead, and you don¹t even know how and
why it happened.

And you try to make yourself look like a PATRIOT? Looks like a bisexual knows
alot more than you on the subject matter, and made you look bad at something at
which you tried to represent as your expertise. Yankee
In article <d953acc.0307030841.99be1d9@posting.google.com>, r_c_wade1@email..com (rob wade) wrote:

peacenik

Sorry, Cal, but the ruling has shown that the Constitution not only lives,
but is strong and healthy. The Constitution is about equal rights for all.
This ruling reflects that.

Of course, Cal and his right-wing buddies would love to see nothing more
than the destruction of the Constitution and of American democracy, replaced
by theocratic dictatorship in this country.

Oooh, how horrible! Just imagine - gay people enjoying the same rights we
straights do. How could we ever have THAT?


So, where in the Constitution does it say that gays cannot enjoy equal
rights, Cal? Let me tell you: Nowhere. Therefore the Constitution is not
being "tailored to the whims" of culture.

This notwithstanding, the Constitution WAS designed by our wise Founders to
be rigid enough to uphold rights for all, but flexible enough to change and
be interpreted according to the advances of the future. That is why it is
known as a living document.

I see. Cal doesn't believe we Americans have a right to privacy. Sorry, but
our right to privacy is a fundamental American right.


And which is a Good Thing...

Indeed. The Constitution is there to protect us from a tyrrany of the
majority. YOUR religious beliefs should not have any say in how others lead their lives.


No, it leads to freedom. A government canNOT legislate morality.

Fallacy: Argument from antiquity. Just because something is old, does not
mean it is right.


Slippery slope fallacy. Bestiality is non-consensual.

I see nothing wrong with polygamy if all parties are taking part willingly.

What other kinds of sexual practices is he referring to? Bondage? Fetishism?
Hey, Cal, if the participants in a sexual activity are consenting adults, no
harm is being done. If no harm is being done, no immorality is taking place.

Yup. Apparently, Cal, you disagree. You think the Big Brother should be
policing our sex lives.

Just because YOU can't get a blowjob doesn't mean you have to deny that
pleasure to the rest of us.


Yup. In other words, such SC decisions led to MORE FREEDOM.

You hate freedom, don't you, Cal?


In other words, MORE FREEDOM.


Yup. Communities do not have the rights to arbitrarily oppress their
residents. The rights of Americans shall not be infringed, even by public
opinion or local governments.

Imagine that. Schools teaching kids that gays are people, too.


Scalia's rant was amazing, and shows exactly why he is unfit to sit on the
bench. His rant showed conclusively that he hates the Constitution, he is
prejudiced against gays, and he hates freedom.


No. Freedom must be upheld. After all, FREEDOM is the reason America exists
in the first place. There it is, on our currency, in our founding documents,
and in our patriotic songs and odes: the word "LIBERTY" - the most
fundamental value of the country we call AMERICA.

Scalia is, of course, wrong.


AND THIS IS A GOOD THING. Can't these right-wingers get that simple concept
through their thick skulls?


Fornication? Doesn't that simply mean sleeping around? CAL WANTS THAT TO BE
ILLEGAL?? And adultery?? ILLEGAL??? Obscentiy, for fuck-sakes? Cal and
Scalia are indeed nuts.

As for bestiality and incest, there are RATIONAL REASONS why these are illegal.


YES! Make it a major theme. Make the expansion of LIBERTY by the Supreme
Court a major theme.

Most Americans support this ruling, Cal.

Yes, we do. On the side of FREEDOM.

On the side of OPPRESSION.


Bush deep down believes this ruling is wrong, being the right-winger he is.
But he doesn't dare condemn it, because he needs the support of the
moderates and libertarians to gain re-election.
So, YES, let's make it a major issue.

--
Chris

m is for malapert

But he wants Roe to fall. He would love to write the argument for
overturning it. If anything, he's probably pissed because Kennedy said
everything he would've. Hypocrite.


Actually not. The foundation of Roe hasn't been eroded in the slightest; in
fact, subsequent decisions have strengthened it. Such as this one. And Roe
has indeed induced individual and societal reliance that counsels against
overturning it, as Sandra Day O'Connor noted in Casey. As individuals,
women obviously do rely on the availability of safe, legal abortion for
recourse, and as a society we're reluctant to go back to the days of
abortion prohibition, which did nothing whatsoever to reduce the frequency
of abortion but did make it needlessly dangerous, shameful, secret and
humiliating. And while Roe has been criticized, it's far from clear that
any of that criticism is substantial.

True, but so what? Slavery, witch-burning, anti-Judaism, and heresy were
judicially and legislatively recognized for centuries as well.


Probably not, which is a good thing. The only possible exception might be
some forms of bestiality, since there is a rational basis (cruelty) for laws against hurting animals.

Oh, please. Pretty please, with sugar on top? Nothing could be better for
the Democrats than for Americans to realize just how far these sex-obsessed
prudes want to regulate our sex lives.

megw

In article <qRfNa.35740$fG.18225@sccrnsc01>, Peacenik says...

The burning question for me is rather simple (maybe I'm just a simple-minded
girl), but why is anyone even concerned about what two consenting individuals do
in the privacy of their own home?

***I am so happy for my gay friends!***

It appears that - to be conservative is to be sexually repressed in some way.
Healthy people do not concerned themselves with what other ppl are doing in
their bedrooms (or kitchens, showers, living room floors, etc.,) but are focused
on their own private lives.

Meg

wryan

In contesting the "right of privacy" as a modern invention, an extra-
Constitutional overlay concocted by overenthusiastic judges, Thomas is
merely echoing Bork's comments. The weakest portion of Bork's weakly
argued book, "Tempting of America," had to do with the right of
privacy. In it, Bork, like Thomas, claims that there is no such
constitutional right. The problem is that liberty is utterly
unthinkable without an implied right of privacy, and that implied --
or expressed -- right antedates our constitution in English Law by
several centuries. The notion that man's home is his castle is
certainly ancient enough to satisfy the crusty minds of Cal Thomas and
the minority justices in this case.

Following their logic, the Constitution does not specifically identify
a "right to read." That being the case, Congress, which cannot impinge
on the right of a free press, could certainly impinge on the right to
read what that free press produces, there being no expressed "right to
read." This seems like a silly argument, but it is basically the same
as those who calim we can protect liberty while denying there is a
right of privacy.

The notion of privacy embraces all that is sacred and profound in the
Constitutional consensus, that a person has the right to believe and
act as he or she wishes within the confines of his or her own home as
long those actions do not impinge on the rights of others. Bork's
response would be, "then a man has a right to acquire puppies, bring
them home and torture them to death for his own pleasure."

A rational response would be that the "right of privacy" is not
absolute -- it's already been qualified in the sense that it ends when
the individual begins suppressing the rights of others. It can also be
affected indirectly. Animal cruelty laws are designed to protect
animals and are not specifically targeted at a person's privacy
rights. They can prevail even while constitutional privacy is
protected. The Constitution also implies that a person is at liberty
to enjoy his or her own property. Yet zoning laws can proscribe what
you do with real property and speeding laws can confine your right to
drive as fast as you wish. Neither obscure your right to own and enjoy
your property, although they may rationally limit it for the societal
benefit they derive.

Sex laws that prohibit certain activities between consenting adults --
even between a husband and his wife -- go to the very heart of the
notion of privacy. There is no rational reason for inhibiting
consenting adults from reading the Bible in unison, praying to Zeus,
painting their floors purple, eating scrambled eggs and ketsup, or
engaging in pleasurable sexual activities that one or another
religious group deems sinful.

Cal Thomas is a crusty old fart who makes his living pandering to the
prejudices of the religious right. What he sees as the end of the
Constitution, others see as its fulfillment, the expressed disgust
with the illegal and immoral intrusion of government in the bedrooms
of law-abiding citizens. We need government and we need laws, but we
don't need a judiciary and legal system that creates laws designed to
violate the sacred liberty of individuals by inserting itself between
their sheets. This is a profoundly conservative interpretation of the
law, one that adheres to notions so basic and so implicit that the
founders never thought they need be expressed. The one good thing
about having conservative justices on the court is that, if they are
not blinded by the prejudices of ideology, they often find themselves
gravitating to the case that liberals have been arguing for years. It
happened with the Warren Court, and it's happening with this one as
well.

Will

john m price phd

: Slippery slope fallacy. Bestiality is non-consensual.

Really? Sure about that? Read some of the old alt.sex.bestiality
posts. If there is ever creature to say 'no', and mean it, it is the nice
400 pound horse. If the horse says 'no' politely, it will walk away. If
it says 'no' with emphasis, you will be killed.

--
John M. Price, PhD jmprice@calweb.com
Life: Chemistry, but with feeling! | PGP Key on request or FTP!
Email responses to my Usenet articles will be posted at my discretion.
Comoderator: sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated Atheist# 683

There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former
begets knowledge, the latter ignorance.
- Hippocrates (Law)

patriotboy

On 05 Jul 2003, John M Price PhD <jmprice@calweb.com> posted this:

As someone who has broke horses, I'm telling you that you're full of
shit. You can train a horse to do anything that's within its
capabilites to do.

--
Today, "liberal" is just another word for "not nuts."
Don't go around invading countries that do not pose a
threat and lie to the world to justify it; don't destroy
the nation's fiscal health in order to give trillion-dollar
gifts to the wealthy; don't gratuitously insult countries
whose help we need to maintain world peace and security;
don't shred the Constitution at every opportunity, etc., etc.
--Eric Alterman

General JC Christian, Patriot, Comments on the News
http://patriotboy.blogspot.com

john m price phd

:> Really? Sure about that? Read some of the old
:> alt.sex.bestiality posts. If there is ever creature to say
:> 'no', and mean it, it is the nice 400 pound horse. If the horse
:> says 'no' politely, it will walk away. If it says 'no' with
:> emphasis, you will be killed.

: As someone who has broke horses,

Really? Did you do the task set forth? Apparently not. (Probably that
hitting your head on the ground two too many times....)

How does 'breaking horses' relate to bestiality in the broader sense?

I'm telling you that you're full of
: shit.

I am not involved in bestiality, so I had to rely on the comments of
those who, apparently, are.

You can train a horse to do anything that's within its
: capabilites to do.

Effectively, they simply stand still for male humans.

All in all, though, you should read up on it. That is if google scarfed
the alt.sex.* hierarchy when it was actually a discussion area, and not a
porn pit. I am not sure they did.

So then, is all training of animals a violation of their consent, and as
such should be banned, or is it only that part where sex is involved, even
if the animal seems to not object. We train them to kill, after all.

--
John M. Price, PhD jmprice@calweb.com
Life: Chemistry, but with feeling! | PGP Key on request or FTP!
Email responses to my Usenet articles will be posted at my discretion.
Comoderator: sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated Atheist# 683

One of the most irrational of all the conventions of modern society is the
one to the effect that religious opinions should be respected. [This]
convention protects them, and so they proceed with their blather unwhipped
and almost unmolested, to the great damage of common sense and common
decency. That they should have this immunity is an outrage. There is
nothing in religious ideas, as a class, to lift them above other ideas.
On the contrary, they are always dubious and often quite silly.
- H.L. Mencken (Minority Report, 1956)

patriotboy

On 05 Jul 2003, John M Price PhD <jmprice@calweb.com> posted this:


Are we playing Bondian comprehension games now? It's about conditioning.


It's about conditioning, Bill.


--
Today, "liberal" is just another word for "not nuts."
Don't go around invading countries that do not pose a
threat and lie to the world to justify it; don't destroy
the nation's fiscal health in order to give trillion-dollar
gifts to the wealthy; don't gratuitously insult countries
whose help we need to maintain world peace and security;
don't shred the Constitution at every opportunity, etc., etc.
--Eric Alterman

General JC Christian, Patriot, Comments on the News
http://patriotboy.blogspot.com