Iraq Soldier writes to American Voters (The real story)

Yeah...did you read it? There is a lot of wording that can be interpreted differently. for example, what constitutes "unreasonable searches and seizures?" and what is "cruel and unusual punishment?" Is waterboarding cruel and unusual?
 
It's silly that you think in such fear based ideals that your willing to pick a candidate on your fears, instead of their benifits.
 


RELIGIOUS LIBERTY: ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE

Everson v. Board of Education (1947)

New Jersey’s reimbursement to parents of parochial and private school

students for the costs of busing their children to school was upheld

because the assistance went to the child, not the church. This case

also applied the Establishment Clause to the actions of state

governments.

Torcaso v. Watkins (1961)

A Maryland requirement that candidates for public office swear that

they believe in God was a religious test and violated Article VI of the

Constitution as well as the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

Engel v. Vitale (1962)

New York’s requirement of a state-composed prayer to begin the school

day was declared an unconstitutional violation of the Establishment

Clause.

Abington School District v. Schempp (1963)

A

Pennsylvania law requiring that each public school day open with Bible

reading was struck down as violating the Establishment Clause.

Murray v. Curlett (1963)

A

Maryland law requiring prayer at the beginning of each public school

day was declared unconstitutional as a violation of the Establishment

Clause.

Epperson v. Arkansas (1968)

An

Arkansas law prohibiting the teaching of evolution was

unconstitutional, because it was based on “fundamentalist sectarian

conviction” and violated the Establishment Clause.

Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)

The

Court struck down a Pennsylvania law reimbursing religious schools for

textbooks and teacher salaries. The decision held that a program does

not violate the Constitution if: (a) it has a primarily secular

purpose; (b) its principal effect neither aids nor inhibits religion;

and (c) government and religion are not excessively entangled.

Stone v. Graham (1980)

State

laws mandating the display of the Ten Commandments in public school

classrooms were declared unconstitutional as a violation of the

Establishment Clause.

Marsh v. Chambers (1983)

States had the right to hire a chaplain to open legislative sessions

with a prayer or invocation. The traditional practice did not violate

the Establishment Clause.

Lynch v. Donnelly (l984)

The

Court upheld a nativity display among other symbols in a public park

“to celebrate the Christmas holiday and to depict the origins of that

holiday.”

Wallace v. Jaffree (1985)

An

Alabama law setting aside a moment for “voluntary prayer” and allowing

teachers to lead “willing students” in a prayer to “Almighty God . . .

the Creator and Supreme Judge of the world” in public schools was

struck down. The law had no secular purpose and endorsed religion,

violating the Establishment Clause.

Edwards v. Aguillard (1987)

Louisiana

could not require public schools that taught evolution to teach

creationism as “Creation Science.” The law had no secular purpose and

endorsed religion, violating the Establishment Clause.

Allegheny County v. Greater Pittsburgh ACLU (1989)

A nativity scene with the words “Gloria in Excelsis Deo,”

meaning “Glory to God in the Highest,” placed alone on the grand

staircase of a courthouse endorsed religion and violated the

Establishment Clause.

Board of Education of Westside Community Schools v. Mergens (1990)

The

1990 Equal Access Act, which required that public schools give

religious groups the same access to facilities that other

extracurricular groups have, was upheld. Allowing religious clubs to

meet did not violate the Establishment Clause.

Lee v. Weisman (1992)

Officially

approved, clergy-led prayer at public school graduations led to subtle

religious coercion, and violated the Establishment Clause.

Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills School District (1993)

A

school district had to provide a sign interpreter to a deaf child at a

religious school. The aid was constitutional because it went to the

student, not the church.

Kiryas Joel School District v. Grumet (1994)

A

New York law creating a special school district to benefit disabled

Orthodox Jewish children was struck down because it benefited a single

religious group and was not neutral to religion.

Capitol Square Review and Advisory Board v. Pinette (1995)

A

cross placed by a private group in a traditional public forum adjoining

the state house did not violate the Establishment Clause, as the space

was open to all on equal terms.

Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe (2000)

A

public school district’s policy of having students vote on a prayer to

be read by a student at football games violated the Establishment

Clause. The voting policy resulted in religious coercion of the

minority by the majority.

Good News Club v. Milford Central School (2001)

Religious

clubs were allowed to meet in public schools after class hours as other

clubs were permitted to do. Allowing religious clubs to meet did not

violate the Establishment Clause.

Mitchell v. Helms (2000)

The

federal government could provide computer equipment to all

schools—public, private and parochial—under the Elementary and

Secondary Education Act. The aid was religiously neutral and did not

violate the Establishment Clause.

Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002)

A

government program providing tuition vouchers for Cleveland

schoolchildren to attend a private school of their parents’ choosing

was upheld. The vouchers were neutral towards religion and did not

violate the Establishment Clause.

Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow (2004)

A

father challenged the constitutionality of requiring public school

teachers to lead the Pledge of Allegiance, which has included the

phrase “under God” since 1954. The Court determined that Mr. Newdow, as

a non-custodial parent, did not have standing to bring the case to

court and therefore did not answer the constitutional question.

Van Orden v. Perry (2005)

A

six-foot monument displaying the Ten Commandments donated by a private

group and placed with other monuments next to the Texas State Capitol

had a secular purpose and would not lead an observer to conclude that

the state endorsed the religious message, and therefore did not violate

the Establishment Clause.

McCreary County v. ACLU (2005)

Two

large, framed copies of the Ten Commandments in Kentucky courthouses

lacked a secular purpose and were not religiously neutral, and

therefore violated the Establishment Clause.

RELIGIOUS LIBERTY: FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE



Reynolds v. United States (1879)

A federal law banning polygamy was upheld. The Free Exercise Clause

forbids government from regulating belief, but does allow government to

regulate actions such as marriage.

Minersville v. Gobitas (1940)

The Court upheld a Pennsylvania flag-salute law, because “religious

liberty must give way to political authority.” This was reversed in West Virginia v. Barnette (1943).



Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940)

States could not require special permits for religious solicitation

when permits were not required for non-religious solicitation. The

Court began applying the Free Exercise Clause to the states and

recognized an absolute freedom of belief.

Braunfeld v. Brown (1961)

The Court upheld a Pennsylvania law requiring stores to be closed on

Sundays, even though Orthodox Jews claimed the law unduly burdened them

since their religion required them to close their stores on Saturdays

as well. The Court held that the law did not target Jews specifically

as a group.

Sherbert v. Verner (1963)

The Court ruled that states could not deny unemployment benefits to a

person for turning down a job because it required him/her to work on

the Sabbath. Requiring a person to abandon their religious convictions

in order to receive benefits was a violation of the Free Exercise

Clause.

Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)

The Court ruled that Amish adolescents could be exempt from a state law

requiring school attendance for all 14- to 16-year-olds, since their

religion required living apart from the world and worldly influence.

The state’s interest in students’ attending two more years of school

was not enough to outweigh the individual right to free exercise.

McDaniel v. Paty (1978)

A Tennessee law barring members of the clergy from public office was

overturned because it directly targeted people because of their

religious profession.

Thornton v. Caldor (1985)

Private companies are free to fire people who refuse to work on any day

they claim is their Sabbath, because the First Amendment applies only

to government, not to private employers

Goldman v. Weinberger (1986)

Air Force penalties against a Jewish chaplain who wore a yarmulke

(skull cap) on duty in defiance of regulations were upheld. The

military’s interest in uniformity outweighed the individual right to

free exercise.

Employment Division v. Smith (1990)

Oregon could deny unemployment benefits to someone fired from a job for

illegally smoking peyote during a religious ceremony. The Free Exercise

Clause does not excuse people from obeying the law.

Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah (1993)

Laws passed by four Florida cities banning animal sacrifice were

targeted at the Santeria religion, which employs animal sacrifice in

prayer, and therefore the laws were unconstitutional.

Locke v. Davey (2004)

States

could refuse to award scholarship funds to college students pursuing

divinity degrees in preparation for the ministry. The denial of

government funding for religious instruction was not a violation of

free exercise.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH: GENERAL

Schenck v. United States (1919)

Freedom

of speech can be limited during wartime. The government can restrict

expressions that “would create a clear and present danger that they

will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to

prevent.”

Abrams v. United States (1919)

The

First Amendment did not protect printing leaflets urging to resist the

war effort, calling for a general strike and advocating violent

revolution

Debs v. United States (1919)

The First Amendment did not protect an anti-war speech designed to obstruct recruiting.

Gitlow v. New York (1925)

The Supreme Court applied protection of free speech to the states through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942)

The

First Amendment did not protect “fighting words” which, by being said,

cause injury or cause an immediate breach of the peace.

West Virginia v. Barnette (1943)

The

West Virginia Board’s policy requiring students and teachers to recite

the Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional. Reversing Minersville v. Gobitas (1940), the Court held government cannot “force citizens to confess by word or act their faith” in matters of opinion.

United States v. O’Brien (1968)

The First Amendment did not protect burning draft cards in protest of the Vietnam War as a form of symbolic speech.

Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)

The

Court ruled that students wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam

War was “pure speech,” or symbolic speech protected by the First

Amendment.

Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)

The

Supreme Court held that the First and Fourteenth Amendments protected

speech advocating violence at a Ku Klux Klan rally because the speech

did not call for “imminent lawless action.”

Cohen v. California(1971)

A California statute prohibiting the display of offensive messages violated freedom of expression.

Miller v. California (1973)

This

case set forth rules for obscenity prosecutions, but it also gave

states and localities flexibility in determining what is obscene.

Island Trees School District v. Pico (1982)

The

Supreme Court ruled that officials could not remove books from school

libraries because they disagreed with the content of the books’

messages.

Bethel School District v. Fraser (1986)

A

school could suspend a pupil for giving a student government nomination

speech full of “elaborate, graphic, and explicit sexual metaphor.”

Texas v. Johnson (1989)

Flag burning as political protest is a form of symbolic speech protected by the First Amendment.

R.A.V. v. St. Paul(1992)

A

criminal ordinance prohibiting the display of symbols that “arouse

anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color,

creed, religion or gender” was unconstitutional. The law violated the

First Amendment because it punished speech based on the ideas expressed.

Reno v. ACLU (1997)

The

1996 Communications Decency Act was ruled unconstitutional since it was

overly broad and vague in its regulation of speech on the Internet, and

since it attempted to regulate indecent speech, which the First

Amendment protects.

Watchtower Bible and Tract Society v. Stratton (2002)

City

laws requiring permits for political advocates going door to door were

unconstitutional because such a mandate would have a “chilling effect”

on political communication.

United States v. American Library Association (2003)

The

federal government could require public libraries to use

Internet-filtering software to prevent viewing of pornography by

minors. The burden placed on adult patrons who had to request the

filters be disabled was minimal.

Virginia v. Hicks (2003)

Richmond

could ban non-residents from public housing complexes if the

non-residents did not have “a legitimate business or social purpose”

for being there. The trespass policy was not overbroad and did not

infringe upon First Amendment rights.

Virginia v. Black (2003)

A

blanket ban on cross-burning was an unconstitutional content-based

restriction on free speech. States could ban cross burning with intent

to intimidate, but the cross burning act alone was not enough evidence

to infer intent.

Ashcroft v. ACLU (2004)

The

Child On-Line Protection Act violated the First Amendment because it

was overbroad, it resulted in content-based restrictions on speech, and

there were less-restrictive options available to protect children from

harmful materials.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH: CAMPAIGN FINANCE



Buckley v. Valeo (1976)

“Reasonable

restrictions” on individual, corporate and group contributions to

candidates were allowed; limits on campaign expenditures were

unconstitutional since these placed “substantial and direct

restrictions” on protected political expression.

Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee v. FEC (1996)

The

Court ruled that campaign spending by political parties on behalf of

congressional candidates could not be limited as long as the parties

work independently of the candidates. McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003)

Limitations

on “soft-money” contributions and political advertisements were

acceptable infringements of free speech because of the government’s

interest in preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption in

elections.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH: COMMERCIAL

Virginia Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council (1976)

A pharmacy had the First Amendment right to advertise prices.



Linmark v. Willingboro (1977)

A town prohibition on “For Sale” and “Sold” signs was unconstitutional.

The ban was unreasonable restriction on the flow of commercial

information.

United States v. United Foods (2001)

A

law forcing cooperatives of mushroom growers to pay advertising fees

was “contrary to First Amendment principles” as a form of compelled

speech.

FREEDOM OF THE PRESS



Rex v. Zenger (1735)

The

colony of New York tried publisher John Peter Zenger for seditious

libel against the governor. At that time, truth was not a defense in a

libel case. Zenger’s attorney told the jury of their power and duty to

judge the law as well as the facts, and the jury acquitted Zenger.

Though not a Supreme Court case, this is a landmark freedom of the

press case.

People v. Croswell (1804)

Harry

Croswell was convicted of libel for printing a story critical of

President Thomas Jefferson in his newspaper. Alexander Hamilton

represented Croswell on appeal and argued that truth should be a

defense for libel. Croswell’s conviction was upheld, but the case led

New York to change its law to permit truth as a defense. Though not a

Supreme Court case, this is a landmark freedom of the press case.

Near v. Minnesota (1931)

A

state law allowing prior restraint was unconstitutional. This decision

also extended protection of press freedom to the states through the

Fourteenth Amendment.

New York Times v. Sullivan (1964)

The First Amendment protected all statements about public officials unless the speaker lied with the intent to defame.

Garrison v. Louisiana (1964)

A

Louisiana law that punished true statements made with “actual malice”

was overturned. The Court ruled that unless a newspaper shows “reckless

disregard for the truth,” it is protected under the First Amendment.

Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts and AP v. Walker (1967)

A

“public figure” who is not a public official may recover damages for a

defamatory falsehood what harms his or her reputation, if the

newspaper’s actions were an “extreme departure” of the standards of

reporting.

New York Times v. United States (1971)

A

claimed threat to national security was not justification for prior

restraint on publication of classified documents (the Pentagon Papers)

about the Vietnam War.

Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart (1976)

A

judge’s order that the media not publish or broadcast statements by

police in a murder trial was an unconstitutional prior restraint. The

gag order violated the First Amendment rights of the press and the

community.

Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting (1977)

The Court ruled that the First Amendment does not give a television

station to right to air the entire act of a performance without the

performer’s permission.

Hustler v. Falwell (1988)

The First Amendment prohibits public figures from recovering damages

for intentional infliction of emotional harm unless the publication

contained a false statement made with actual malice.

Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988)

Public school officials can censor school-sponsored newspapers, because

the newspapers are part of the school curriculum rather than a forum

for public expression.

FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLY/ASSOCIATION

Dejonge v. Oregon (1937)

Federal protection of the right of peaceful assembly for lawful discussion was extended to the states.

NAACP v. Alabama (1958)

An

Alabama law requiring associations to disclose their membership lists

was struck down. This requirement would suppress legal association

among the group’s members.

Edwards v. South Carolina (1963)

The

convictions of students arrested for peaceful demonstrations against

segregation were overturned because the state could not “make criminal

the peaceful expression of unpopular views.”

Lloyd Corporation v. Tanner (1972)

Shopping

mall owners may prohibit demonstrators from assembling in their private

malls since the First Amendment applies to public, not private

property.

Village of Skokie vs. National Socialist Party (1978)

The National Socialist (Nazi) Party could not be prohibited from marching peacefully because of the content of their message.

Rotary International v. Rotary Club of Duarte (1987)

California

state law requiring Rotary Clubs to admit women was constitutional.

Because women members would not prevent the group from accomplishing

its goals, the Court held that the state’s compelling interest in

ending sexual discrimination outweighed the infringement on the group’s

right of association.

Madsen v. Women’s Health Clinic (1994)

Some

restrictions on protesters at a Florida abortion clinic, including

limits on noise amplification and a required buffer zone, did not

violate the First Amendment. The restrictions that “burden[ed] no more

speech than necessary” to protect access to the clinic and ensure

orderly traffic flow on the street were upheld. The restrictions that

burdened “more speech than necessary” and were struck down.

Hurley v. Irish American GLIB Association (1995)

Forcing a privately-organized parade to include homosexual and bisexual

groups would be a form of coerced speech and violated the organizers’

First Amendment rights.

Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York (1997)

”Fixed buffers” around abortion clinics were constitutional since they

protected the government’s interest in protecting private property and

preventing illegal activity. A fifteen-foot “floating buffer” around

patients leaving or entering an abortion clinic was struck down as an

infringement of the protestors’ First Amendment rights.

Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (2000)

Forcing the Boy Scouts to admit a gay scout leader would violate the

private organization’s rights to freedom of association and expressive

association.

Holy fuck, you're right, the rights outlined in the Bill of Rights are simple and easy to interpret.

The US today functions on laws and court decisions that have come up that challenge the Bill of Rights and Constitution because those documents can never fully explain everything the writers had in mind. Some of their ideas were great, sure, but others, like black people being 3/5ths of a person, are fucking terrible. If you take these documents at full face value with no sway given to current issues and perspectives, you're a nostalgic, yet idiotic individual.

 
it has nothing to do with fears. if i was voting based on my fears i'd vote for Guiliani or Romney and thier terror based campaigns. but, instead, I look for a positive future based upon how I want to see the direction of my country head. I see that best with a man promoting peace rather than endless war. It's not fear, it's logic and hope.
 
... and thats my point. Laws arent defined by the documents themselves, its by the way our court system decides it to be. And courts are not static, decisions are based on whats going on in the world.
 
Actually, Laws are defined by documents. Its not like Laws just are pulled out of someones ass. As far as I know, most supreme court decisions tend to side with the constitution. The supreme court is very careful about how they decide and the main document they look to for advice is the constitution/Bill of Rights. Yes, they look at the case with a present day view, but in the end, they do NOT just completely come up with a decision out of left field. Of course the founding fathers could not foresee every single problem, but they were mostly just focused on Individual and States Rights. They were not worried about a bunch of petty issues such as Gay cub Scouts
 
"Is waterboarding cruel and unusual?"

Choking and partially drowning someone while you ask them questions repeatedly for hours...come on? ITS TORTURE. Bush thinks he has the right to do this to you if he feels the need, not because he thinks it is neither cruel nor unusual, but because HE DOESNT CARE THAT HE DOESN"T HAVE THAT RIGHT.

"unreasonable searches and seizures?"

PLEASE DO NOT MAKE ME EXPLAIN THE PATRIOT ACT TO YOU. It is unconstitutional on this and many other grounds. Please argue that it isn't, and I will verbally rape you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNfJjx_Pluw

Watch the video. President Bush can see how many times you have accessed 2girls1cup.com in the last 6 months. I wonder if more than once is grounds for waterboarding.

We have been electing presidents that go to war without congressional approval for years, A DIRECT BREECH of the constitution.

.

.

.

Do you still want to insinuate that the current administration respected the constitution and just...interpreted it differently (unless by differently you mean incorrectly)? I think it is important to elect someone who has spent decades defending it. These kinds of things could not happen if we elected someone who truely respected it's code.

You cannot possess the ability to read and comprehend written word and think it allows our government these kinds of actions.

Do people look at the Ten Commandments and ask if its actually "murder" if you throw a rock a someones skull and kill them, because you never directly touched him? Is that a different interpretation, or is that just being a fucking moron?
 
Of course there are situations that are not direct violations, BUT THERE ARE SITUATIONS THAT OBVIOUSLY ARE.

In any case, are you suggesting that the Bush administration has been cooperative in the judicial process?

Lets go ask Alberto Gonzales.
 
god... the letter this so called "joe" wrote isnt anything new. Its nothing I havnt heard since we went into iraq. Fuckin retarted.
 
God you're dumb. Is it really that difficult to comprehend the concept of constitutional interpretation? It's not about "siding with" or against the constitution, it's about determining definitional clarity. There will ALWAYS be a core and a penumbra no matter what rule you have, whether it be something as vague as freedom of religion or as specific as "no vehicles allowed in the park". This is actually a good thing: it allows for progress. More modern constitutional regimes are, for the most part, intentionally vague, so that their parameters can be adapted to a myriad of situations and applied differently in different contexts, situational OR temporal. That way the terms don't become archaic as many of the USA's arguably have (quartering soldiers? what?) , and you don't have to stretch them quite so far to make them make sense centuries later.

What the constitution and the bill of rights mean must be interpreted in a social context and that's what those supreme court decisions are doing. Real, substantive change to the rules must come via government (parliament in a parliamentary democracy, or otherwise in another system). But the courts still decide what effect the words will have, and that effect changes with time and with society.

This isn't even an argument about 08. It's another example of the uneducated, pedestrian dolts attempting to be political and completely fucking it up. Here we have someone talking about the constitution with no understanding of theory. Get an education, you hack. If you'd read Dworkin, Hart... fuck, even just a constitutional law textbook* you'd already know all of this and you wouldn't be saying such incredibly simplistic, naive, ignorant things.

*For a good text I recommend:http://www.utppublishing.com/pubstore/merchant.ihtml?pid=7477&lastcatid=149&step=4

It's half Canadian and half American so there's constant comparison between the Canadian constitution and the American, comparative constitutional law being the growth field that it is. The freedom of speech differences are really interesting and differences in application make the theory a lot clearer. Of course, you won't read this, but just in case, there it is. Now you don't even have to get into college to get educated.

 
as annoying as it is to see every thread turned into a jump-on-ron-paul's-dick thread... you do bring up a good point on this one.
 
that's because ron paul has good points and he is inteligent enough to know ron paul's points and how to defend them unlike most of the sheepish ron paul supporters.
 
uhh, I was referring more to the point that this wasn't 'turned into' a ron paul thread, as it was one from the start. Whatever your point was, though, cool.
 
I was trying to say that IcePointa had the inteligence to actually support Paul's ideas with proof rather than the other sheepish Ron Paul Followers that just post video's of "what ron would say". I need sleep though. hope that "cool" post makes sense now.
 
haha, let's not refer to everybody on NS here, this is just for Rezfredrik (sp i am too lazy to go back and look).
 
When I said "Side with the constitution", I meant it as a figure of speech.

Personally, I dont really give a shit about another countries constitution. I live in the US and thus I care about the US constitution. Honestly, why would I care about Canada's constitution? Should I also care about Timbuktu's constitution just because? Sorry, but no thanks.

I understand that words can be interpreted differently. When the founding fathers of the US sat down to write the Constitution, they also understood that words can be interpreted differently, that is why they were very careful in what words they chose to use because they understood that idiots out there would try and twist and spin as much as they could. They also did not try to make it to complicated so that anyone and everyone could understand it. They did not intend someone to go to college for 4 years just to understand what they meant. Its really not that complicated and you are just trying to make it more complicated than it really is.

Besides that point, I have my bachelors degree from a US university already thank you very much. May I ask exactly what your education consists of? And no, I did not study Politics. Personally I think studying politics in school is not something for me, I can study it plenty while out of school and not have to pay for it. Is that what they teach you up in Canada about politics? How to spin everything you can?

Like I said, yes, the supreme courts make the final decisions if it comes to that. That is why we must elect people who stand by the constitution's words. Unfortunately, there are some people who are elected to governmental judge positions who dont really give a shit about the constitution and are just spin artists. For example, Montana has its own constitution that is seperate from the US constitution. We still hold true to the US constitution in the end on federal decisions, but we also have some changes that reflect on our state. I personally believe it is a good idea. The US constitution is big on states rights so it makes sense.

Here is some more info for you from Wikepedia on non-intervention for those confused on Ron Pauls stances.

Non-interventionism, the diplomatic policy whereby a nation seeks to avoid alliances with other nations in order to avoid being drawn into wars not related to direct territorial self-defense, has had a long history in the United States.

In the United States, non-interventionism has often been confused with isolationism. Critics of non-interventionism frequently add to this confusion by describing prominent non-interventionists as isolationists. However, true isolationism combines a non-interventionist foreign policy with protectionism (economic nationalism) and strict border controls to prevent international travel and cultural exchange. The majority non-interventionists in the United States reject protectionism in favor of free trade, international travel, and cultural exchange.

President Thomas Jefferson extended Washington's ideas in his March 4, 1801 inaugural address: "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none." Jefferson's phrase "entangling alliances" is, incidentally, sometimes incorrectly attributed to Washington.[1]
 
THANK YOU. There are 200 years of constitutional history and interpretation. If you don't know about the history of constitutional interpretation, you have no place in this discussion. Once again, I encourage you all to READ A FUCKING BOOK ONCE IN A WHILE. If you don't know what literalism, doctrinalism, originalism, and developmentalism mean in the context of constitutional interpretation, THEN STOP ACTING LIKE YOU KNOW A GOD DAMN THING.
 
The 'soldier' seemed pretty legit for the first part but once he started talking about ron paul you could jsut tell it was political bullshit.

And STOP FUCKING MAKING RON PAUL THREADS, like someone said before, you havn't converted me in 20 threads, your not going to know.
 
Ah Rez/conceptkid...

Again with the everything-wrong-with-the-USA closed mindedness... Maybe you'd know that Timbuktu is a city...

And we didn't wonder if you studied politics. It's obvious you did not.

The Constitution was certainly the brain child of people who were not

influenced by anything other than pure God-breathed genius (forget any European philosophers), who were Americans bred pure

and true and without sin, who knew the dynamics of the world past, present and future,

who lay into stone every single aspect of American life so clearly

there need be no battle over equality in any basic human right, such as voting rights for, I dunno,

African-Americans, women, anyone not white and rich; or let any room

for a debate about any other aspects of life, given the sheer brilliance of ever single character, word and sentence of the constitution that needn't ever have been changed, interpreted or added to since it's creation.

What world do you live in?
 
1) This is a pathetic thread, no one will ever win, and it will go on endlessly, and it should be closed/ deleted

2) Somebody brought up waterboarding, and i gotta tell you that i have

absolutely no problem with it, if there was a good reason to do it, for

instance, if there was a terrorist who put a dirty bomb in a stadium,

and you knew he did it, but you couldn't find it to disarm it, would

you let him go because it was "unconstitutional" to torture him? NO, you'd let 'im have it, until he finally broke because there are few, if any people who can resist torture for any extended length of time.

Now, that being said, I do think torture should only be used as an absolute last resort, and under strict control/ supervision from somebody (I wouldn't know exactly who, but nonetheless someone who could be responsible about it)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top