United Airlines kerfuffle

JamesCanby · Apr 26, 2017

countryclubjoe said:
Liberal claptrap or not, one cannot dismiss the facts that an unwritten constitution exist. And one must read outside of the text to understand the text itself..
[snip]

Obviously (and too clever by half), an "unwritten constitution" cannot be produced because, well, it is unwritten and, therefore cannot be produced. That "unwritten constitution" exists only in the minds of liberal/progressive leftists whose goal is to change the way the actual Constitution is interpreted and thereby change the principles on which this country was founded. As Obama indicated, they want to "fundamentally transform" the United States.

There is only one United States Constitution, and it exists in plain text, having been amended only 27 times in 228 years. What exists outside of that plain text is not an "unwritten constitution," it is interpretations of the perceived original intent by Supreme Court Justices who, in some cases, have discovered rights that simply do not exist.

To believe in an "unwritten constitution" one must, IMHO, also believe in the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy and a Moon made out of green cheese.

OC for ME · Apr 26, 2017

JamesCanby said:
countryclubjoe said:

Liberal claptrap or not, one cannot dismiss the facts that an unwritten constitution exist. And one must read outside of the text to understand the text itself..
[snip]

Obviously (and too clever by half), an "unwritten constitution" cannot be produced because, well, it is unwritten and, therefore cannot be produced. That "unwritten constitution" exists only in the minds of liberal/progressive leftists whose goal is to change the way the actual Constitution is interpreted and thereby change the principles on which this country was founded. As Obama indicated, they want to "fundamentally transform" the United States.

There is only one United States Constitution, and it exists in plain text, having been amended only 27 times in 228 years. What exists outside of that plain text is not an "unwritten constitution," it is interpretations of the perceived original intent by Supreme Court Justices who, in some cases, have discovered rights that simply do not exist.

To believe in an "unwritten constitution" one must, IMHO, also believe in the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy and a Moon made out of green cheese.

Click to expand...

The right to marital privacy is a myth, except in the eyes of a judge. Do you file a civil action against your spouse for violating your marital privacy? Could there be a criminal component for the violation? Or, can only the state that violate your marital privacy.

countryclubjoe · Apr 26, 2017

OC for ME said:
The Bill of Rights addresses every aspect of our lives, liberty and property.

Please point me to the term ' Bill of Rights" in the text of our most sacred document.

Always a pleasure Sir.. Civil opining helps us all.

Regards
CCJ

OC for ME · Apr 26, 2017

countryclubjoe said:
Please point me to the term ' Bill of Rights" in the text of our most sacred document.

Always a pleasure Sir.. Civil opining helps us all.

Regards
CCJ

Diversion and deflection. Search the Federalist papers. Many liberals do what you are now doing. Unseemly;y from it is, desiring that a "unwritten constitution" be the foundation of our natural rights.

Federalist 25, second to last paragraph, second sentence.
Federalist 26, twice.
Federalist 38, five times.
Federalist 84, 10 times.
Federalist 85, once.

[FONT=&quot]There remains but one other view of this matter to conclude the point. The truth is, after all the declamations we have heard, that the Constitution is itself, in every rational sense, and to every useful purpose, A BILL OF RIGHTS. - Federalist 84, paragraph 12[/FONT]

The Founders did not see a need to title the first ten amendments, being that they are obviously a bill of rights...to the casual observer.

deepdiver · Apr 26, 2017

OC for ME said:
The Founders did not see a need to title the first ten amendments, being that they are obviously a bill of rights...to the casual observer.

+1

countryclubjoe · Apr 27, 2017

OC for ME said:
Diversion and deflection. Search the Federalist papers. Many liberals do what you are now doing. Unseemly;y from it is, desiring that a "unwritten constitution" be the foundation of our natural rights.

Federalist 25, second to last paragraph, second sentence.
Federalist 26, twice.
Federalist 38, five times.
Federalist 84, 10 times.
Federalist 85, once.

The Founders did not see a need to title the first ten amendments, being that they are obviously a bill of rights...to the casual observer.

Thank you for the recommendations on the Federalist however I am very familiar with the papers and the works of Publius( Hamilton) Madison and Jay,

I am not espousing that the " unwritten Constitution" be the foundation of our "natural rights". I doubt that anyone with half a brain would attempt to do the same.. I am simply stating that the written text presupposes and invites certain forms of interpretation that go beyond clause-bound literalism..

As for the " bill of rights".(1791). The bill of rights indeed meant very little to folks of color or woman or poor white folks. Not until 1865 thru 1870 when the 13th amendment (1865) 14th amendment (1868) and the 15th Amendment (1870).. Not until these three Amendments were ratified did the " bill of rights" or the words WE, the people have no
concrete moral meaning, they were in-fact just words on a piece of parchment that did not pertain to ALL THE PEOPLE..

OE, you continue to quote the Federalist, please enlighten me, were not the federalists opposed to a " Bill Of Rights"?

Folks that support " Natural Rights" for all people clearly find the United States Constitution ambiguous and clearly said text did not mean ALL the People..
Not until 1870 when the the 15th amendment was ratified did the Constitution finally mean WE, we now meaning ALL..

The Federalist papers are also ambiguous, take my favorite for example. Federalist #49 written on February 2,1788 by James Madison writing under the nom de plume, Publius.. To wit, " The people are the only legitimate foundation of power, and it is from them that the Constitutional charter-- is derived." " Government is and should be the servant of the people, and it should be fully accountable to them for the actions which it supposedly takes on their behalf".. While Federalist 49 is very inspiring, like most of the papers clearly are, there are many ambiguities. For example the words, the people, them, the people, them and their.. Clearly did not apply to folks of color or woman or poor white folks, so again the words did not apply to all folks, clearly a moral sin against the creator and natural rights for all folks..

The delegates while yes indeed were the best and brightest of their time, were also slaves to their own greed(property). Bear in mind that during that hot summer in Philadelphia in the year of our Lord 1787, the big elephant in the room was " slavery".. And twenty five of said delegates owned slaves..

The thirteen Founding Fathers again the best and the brightest, however, only three of those great Patriots did not own slaves, Paine, Hamilton and John Adams.. Hence those three founders were in fact the most moral of the lot and were " not slaves" in their own minds.. ( my .02).

We cannot argue the fact that if one owns a slave aka another human being, one is in-fact a petty tyrant. Hence I would argue that 25 of the 39 delegates and 10 of the Founding Fathers were in fact petty tyrants and slaves in their own minds.. To wit, George Mason circa 1787, pre the signing of the Constitution.. " On slavery and ownership thereof, " Every gentleman here is born a petty tyrant. Practiced in arts of despotism and cruelty, we become callous to the dictates of humanity. Taught to regard a part of our own species in the most abject and contemptible degree below us, we lose that idea of the dignity of man which the hand of nature had implanted in us, habituate from our infancy to trample upon the rights of human nature, every generous, every liberal sentiment is enfeebled in our minds."

Lysander Spooner questioned the morals and the beliefs of the delegates that signed and ratified our "written Constitution".. to wit, " those who are capable of tyranny are capable of perjury to sustain it."..

If the "Bill of Rights".. were incorporated in 1787 to protect the individual rights of the citizens, clearly said bill, did not apply to all people living during that time.. Therefore, thankfully in 19th century America, the voters had more insight upon Natural individual Rights than our best and brightest in 18th century America.. We have indeed come a long way, with the help of the written Constitution and its Brother the " unwritten Constitution"..

OC, always a pleasure opining Sir, your ambivalence towards me aside, it is indeed my pleasure.

Regards
CC

countryclubjoe · Apr 27, 2017

JamesCanby said:
countryclubjoe said:

Liberal claptrap or not, one cannot dismiss the facts that an unwritten constitution exist. And one must read outside of the text to understand the text itself..
[snip]

Obviously (and too clever by half), an "unwritten constitution" cannot be produced because, well, it is unwritten and, therefore cannot be produced. That "unwritten constitution" exists only in the minds of liberal/progressive leftists whose goal is to change the way the actual Constitution is interpreted and thereby change the principles on which this country was founded. As Obama indicated, they want to "fundamentally transform" the United States.

There is only one United States Constitution, and it exists in plain text, having been amended only 27 times in 228 years. What exists outside of that plain text is not an "unwritten constitution," it is interpretations of the perceived original intent by Supreme Court Justices who, in some cases, have discovered rights that simply do not exist.

To believe in an "unwritten constitution" one must, IMHO, also believe in the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy and a Moon made out of green cheese.

Click to expand...

James, do you not agree that we have per the ninth amendment " unenumerated rights".. ? if Yes, than you, while possibly not knowing it, believe in an " unwritten Constitution".. You see, James,no where in the text does the constitution say, that we have a "right to think" however it is such a basic idea that even folks that do in fact believe in Santa Claus and the Easter bunny, could ascertain, that said right exist while not being fully enumerate(ed) in the terse text of the written document. Hence it exist in the Unwritten Constitution.

While you may have read and possibly studied our great document for many hours, I fear you may have stopped to think beyond and below our great document. You failed to look outside the terse text.. Hence your lack of thought on the text calls to mind the venerable quote from Mr.John Locke, to wit, " Reading furnishes the mind with materials of knowledge, it is Thinking that makes what we read Ours"..

James, I mean no disrespect, for we are all textualist, we are all Constitutionalist..

James, I can't believe you don't believe in Santa Claus, no worries, I shall not be ambivalent towards you!.. LOL

Always a pleasure opining Sir!
Regards
CCJ

countryclubjoe · Apr 28, 2017

OC for ME said:
The Bill of Rights addresses every aspect of our lives, liberty and property.

What in your opinion were the ten most important Bill of Rights cases in American History? If you can't name ten, no problem, name as many has you can think of.. After you name them, I shall show you that their probably not cases that applied under the Bill of Rights but probably fourteenth amendment cases.. Keep in mind that the Bill Of Rights was/is to protect rights violated by the Federal Government..

Regards
CCJ

Bikenut · Apr 28, 2017

The way I see it......

Words are the most powerful weapon in the world. Words have meaning and meanings convey concepts. Beliefs in concepts shape society. Hence the need to control what is taught in schools/colleges and the need to push the idea that the Constitution is a living document subject to agenda driven interpretation in order to support liberal progressive beliefs.

But liberals have realized that pushing the concept of the Constitution being a "living document" has not been favorably received so new words to push the concept that the meaning of the Constitution can be changed according to liberal interpretations are being brought forth. Those new words are.....

"unwritten Constitution".

solus · Apr 28, 2017

Nightmare said:
As one prays, one thinks, one speaks, one acts. Corruption starts at the root. No prayers causes thoughtlessness, thoughtless speech, thoughtless acts.

i'm sorry, say what...

prayer(s) have caused untold massive amounts of destruction, needless loss of life, as well as horrific wars and conficts from the very beginning of the concept of being told (by self serving humans) to pray to nebulous deity(ies) for guidance on how to deal with our fellow human(s).

oh wait...the human written book, written after prayer to the nebulous deity, flat out states...

play nice with each other...

additionally, these human written tomes have other phrases us mortals should follow and with one exception, depending on interpretation, i do not see, massive wars or conflicts against anybody called out whatsoever!

so look at history to see where the real root of corruption lies and whom was advising those in power...

ipse

OC for ME · Apr 28, 2017

countryclubjoe said:
Thank you for the recommendations on the Federalist however I am very familiar with the papers and the works of Publius( Hamilton) Madison and Jay,

I am not espousing that the " unwritten Constitution" be the foundation of our "natural rights". I doubt that anyone with half a brain would attempt to do the same.. I am simply stating that the written text presupposes and invites certain forms of interpretation that go beyond clause-bound literalism..

...

Of course you are. Your continued use of the term is proof of this. Every interpretation of the constitution is contrary to the plain reading of the text.

For example:

Amendment I - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Every clause in this first amendment has been violated via interpretation.

The courts have respected the establishment of approved religions, and enabled the government to deny to others their freedom to peaceably exercise their religion as they see fit. We are routinely restrained by the threat of civil or criminal harm by the state when we choose to exercise our right to speak our mind if the state disapproves of our speech.

A permit to peaceably assemble on public property is a prior restraint approved of by the courts via interpretation.

What part of a unwritten constitution makes the plain text of the 2A more clearly understood?

Here are a few 3A incidents. The obvious missed the judge as he was not interested in holding the cop shop liable under federal law for violating the 3A. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ice-officers/?utm_term=.9872b1fcd626#comments

Then there is this. http://volokh.com/2011/10/18/a-historical-violation-of-the-third-amendment/

The Bill of Rights did not invite interpretation. Only those who disagree with the plain text restraints on government invited interpretation. Those who acknowledge that a unwritten constitution exists, or should exist, invite interpretation because the plain text of the constitution disagrees with some philosophy that they hold dear.

Bikenut · Apr 28, 2017

Nightmare said:
Originally Posted by Bikenut

The way I see it......Words are the most powerful weapon in the world. Those new words are....."unwritten Constitution".

Click to expand...

As one prays, one thinks, one speaks, one acts. Corruption starts at the root. No prayers causes thoughtlessness, thoughtless speech, thoughtless acts.

Do NOT! edit my posts leaving things out that I said in order to present what I said in a way you want it to read! If you are going to leave something out then make it plain you have left something out!

So there is no confusion about what I said including the wording that you left out I will quote myself ..........

Originally posted by Bikenut:
The way I see it......

Words are the most powerful weapon in the world. Words have meaning and meanings convey concepts. Beliefs in concepts shape society. Hence the need to control what is taught in schools/colleges and the need to push the idea that the Constitution is a living document subject to agenda driven interpretation in order to support liberal progressive beliefs.

But liberals have realized that pushing the concept of the Constitution being a "living document" has not been favorably received so new words to push the concept that the meaning of the Constitution can be changed according to liberal interpretations are being brought forth. Those new words are.....

"unwritten Constitution".

solus · Apr 28, 2017

Bikenut said:
Do NOT! edit my posts leaving things out that I said in order to present what I said in a way you want it to read! If you are going to leave something out then make it plain you have left something out!

So there is no confusion about what I said including the wording that you left out I will quote myself ..........

thanks, nicely said!

ipse

countryclubjoe · Apr 29, 2017

OC for ME said:
Of course you are. Your continued use of the term is proof of this. Every interpretation of the constitution is contrary to the plain reading of the text.

For example: Every clause in this first amendment has been violated via interpretation.

The courts have respected the establishment of approved religions, and enabled the government to deny to others their freedom to peaceably exercise their religion as they see fit. We are routinely restrained by the threat of civil or criminal harm by the state when we choose to exercise our right to speak our mind if the state disapproves of our speech.

A permit to peaceably assemble on public property is a prior restraint approved of by the courts via interpretation.

What part of a unwritten constitution makes the plain text of the 2A more clearly understood?

Here are a few 3A incidents. The obvious missed the judge as he was not interested in holding the cop shop liable under federal law for violating the 3A. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ice-officers/?utm_term=.9872b1fcd626#comments

Then there is this. http://volokh.com/2011/10/18/a-historical-violation-of-the-third-amendment/

The Bill of Rights did not invite interpretation. Only those who disagree with the plain text restraints on government invited interpretation. Those who acknowledge that a unwritten constitution exists, or should exist, invite interpretation because the plain text of the constitution disagrees with some philosophy that they hold dear.

Please cite the court cases that support your claims, than we can debate the merits of said cases.
Thank you.
Regards
CCJ

solus · Apr 29, 2017

countryclubjoe said:
Please cite the court cases that support your claims, than we can debate the merits of said cases.
Thank you.
Regards
CCJ

not sure i would put much faith in volokh's reference to Chapman University student Bell's article published in the W&M's 'student' non-peer reviewed article published in W&M's law journal.

BS in BS out!!

ipse

countryclubjoe · Apr 29, 2017

OC for ME said:
Of course you are. Your continued use of the term is proof of this. Every interpretation of the constitution is contrary to the plain reading of the text.

For example: Every clause in this first amendment has been violated via interpretation.

The courts have respected the establishment of approved religions, and enabled the government to deny to others their freedom to peaceably exercise their religion as they see fit. We are routinely restrained by the threat of civil or criminal harm by the state when we choose to exercise our right to speak our mind if the state disapproves of our speech.

A permit to peaceably assemble on public property is a prior restraint approved of by the courts via interpretation.

What part of a unwritten constitution makes the plain text of the 2A more clearly understood?

Here are a few 3A incidents. The obvious missed the judge as he was not interested in holding the cop shop liable under federal law for violating the 3A. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ice-officers/?utm_term=.9872b1fcd626#comments

Then there is this. http://volokh.com/2011/10/18/a-historical-violation-of-the-third-amendment/

The Bill of Rights did not invite interpretation. Only those who disagree with the plain text restraints on government invited interpretation. Those who acknowledge that a unwritten constitution exists, or should exist, invite interpretation because the plain text of the constitution disagrees with some philosophy that they hold dear.

The problem is that the Bill of Rights did not apply to all people at its framing.. Not until the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments were ratified did the Bill of Rights apply to everyone.. The document was clearly prejudicial at its inception and WE the people did not mean all people until after the 15th amendment was ratified in 1870, therefore in my humble opinion the document was bogus for 83 years and did not protect the individual rights of ALL the people.. For 83 years not all the people had a voice in their Government, hence our Government was a Despotic Government for 83 years.
My .02
Regards
CCJ

OC for ME · Apr 30, 2017

countryclubjoe said:
The problem is that the Bill of Rights did not apply to all people at its framing.. Not until the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments were ratified did the Bill of Rights apply to everyone.. The document was clearly prejudicial at its inception and WE the people did not mean all people until after the 15th amendment was ratified in 1870, therefore in my humble opinion the document was bogus for 83 years and did not protect the individual rights of ALL the people.. For 83 years not all the people had a voice in their Government, hence our Government was a Despotic Government for 83 years.
My .02
Regards
CCJ

Grasping at straws at this point. The last refuge of the liberal is bringing up long past, and now irrelevant, events.

solus · Apr 30, 2017

countryclubjoe said:
The problem is that the Bill of Rights did not apply to all people at its framing.. Not until the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments were ratified did the Bill of Rights apply to everyone.. The document was clearly prejudicial at its inception and WE the people did not mean all people until after the 15th amendment was ratified in 1870, therefore in my humble opinion the document was bogus for 83 years and did not protect the individual rights of ALL the people.. For 83 years not all the people had a voice in their Government, hence our Government was a Despotic Government for 83 years.
My .02
Regards
CCJ

please remember, these amendments only manifested themselves upon the end of the War of Rebellion...

otherwise, i do not believe our congress would have even progressed forward whatsoever to include all of this nations' population!!

ipse

solus · Apr 30, 2017

OC for ME said:
Grasping at straws at this point. The last refuge of the liberal is bringing up long past, and now irrelevant, events.

irrelevant...

sorry but like the assassination of JFK caused congress, under LBJ's push, to enact the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

the end of the War of Rebellion coupled with Lincoln's assassination forced Congress to act which resulted in the amendment(s) aimed at all this country's citizens

Passage of those Constitutional amendments in 1865 forced the state legislatures to also change their jim crow constitutions.

seems our state and national Legislative branches do not have any forethought unless someone gets assassinated or 600K US citizens die!!

irrelevant event(s)...might wish to reconsider that position!

ipse

OC for ME · May 1, 2017

solus said:
irrelevant...

sorry but like the assassination of JFK caused congress, under LBJ's push, to enact the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

the end of the War of Rebellion coupled with Lincoln's assassination forced Congress to act which resulted in the amendment(s) aimed at all this country's citizens

Passage of those Constitutional amendments in 1865 forced the state legislatures to also change their jim crow constitutions.

seems our state and national Legislative branches do not have any forethought unless someone gets assassinated or 600K US citizens die!!

irrelevant event(s)...might wish to reconsider that position!

ipse

Now irrelevant. Then, very relevant.

United Airlines kerfuffle

Activist Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Bikenut

Guest

Regular Member

Regular Member

Bikenut

Guest

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member