General wackiness from the judicial realm

Discussion in 'Free Speech Alley' started by Jetstorm, Apr 11, 2005.

  1. Jetstorm

    Jetstorm Founding Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2002
    Messages:
    1,218
    Likes Received:
    29
    Everyone's favorite federal bench, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, has now ruled that threatening the life of the President of the United States is now protected free speech.

    Yes. Really.

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,152934,00.html


    Also, a group of folks are meeting at Yale to discuss ways to shred, oh, excuse me, "re-interpret" and "expand" the Constitution (because it is, after all, a "living document" that must change and flex with the times! :dis: )

    http://constitutionin2020.blogspot.com/

    http://islandia.law.yale.edu/acs/conference/index.asp

    Reason to be concerned? Yes, with this group:

    The Open Society Institute was founded by George Soros, billionaire financier, avowed enemy of George W. Bush, American military power, and Judeo-Christian culture, and an ardent transnationalist and believer in the ideal of one-world government. The Institute pretty much reflects his beliefs on the Constitution and what the U.S.'s role in the world should be.

    No doubt Yale Law School and this conference does as well. I'm sure many lovely ideas about the Constitution came out of that meeting.
     
  2. Mystikalilusion

    Mystikalilusion Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2005
    Messages:
    866
    Likes Received:
    1
    Well, the Bush thing is obsurd. No way that charge should have been dropped, combined with his earlier comment. We've done a lot more to people who have done a lot less.

    Does anyone think the Constitution SHOULDN'T be a flexible document that changes in the future? The speed of progress on so many fronts has picked up so much in the past 100 years, in the next 100, most of the document won't even apply to society.

    Plus, there is totally nothing in there regarding flying cars. . .
     
  3. G_MAN113

    G_MAN113 Founding Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2003
    Messages:
    3,386
    Likes Received:
    19
    This is frightening thinking on a lot of levels.

    Who gets to decide whether or not segments of the Constitution are relevant
    to today's world? What parts wouldn't be? Why eliminate them in any case?

    Technology changes. Basic, God-given rights don't.
     
  4. Mystikalilusion

    Mystikalilusion Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2005
    Messages:
    866
    Likes Received:
    1
    Not at all, Thomas Jefferson himself made two important statements which apply here:

    First, he said that to ensure that each generation have a say in the framework of the government, he proposed that the Constitution, and each one following it, expire after 19 or 20 years.

    And secondly, he declared "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed...whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive...(of the rights of the people)...it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security.…"

    Now i'm not in ANY form saying American Goverment as it is, or as it ever was, was destructive, but I think by updating it (real updates, not minimal single topic changes like most of the amendments), we can go a long way from allowing that to happen.
     
  5. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,733
    Any system that does not adapt and evolve over time is doomed to extinction.
     
  6. NoLimitMD

    NoLimitMD Founding Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2004
    Messages:
    7,551
    Likes Received:
    366
    Red and GMan are both right though. God-given rights as citizens don't and shouldn't change. The interpretation of them with current situations is how our Constitution evolves.
     
  7. martin

    martin Banned Forever

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    19,026
    Likes Received:
    934
    i see no problem. what is supposed to be the problem?

    isnt the constitution supposed to change?

    i agree with red, things are supposed to adapt and evolve. i can think of many huge changes i would like.
     
  8. Mystikalilusion

    Mystikalilusion Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2005
    Messages:
    866
    Likes Received:
    1
  9. Frogleg

    Frogleg Registered Best

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,870
    Likes Received:
    1,667
    the threat against the Pres. should be handled just as though it were a threat against anyone else. What would ya'll want if someone seriously threatened to kill you?

    Most any change nowadays to the constitution will be to the detriment of our rights.

    As the country becomes more urban and populated, we will all spiral down into the smothering quicksand of the "Greater Good"...but the funny thing is, no one will know anyone really basking is the "good".

    But at least will see it on TV
     
  10. Mystikalilusion

    Mystikalilusion Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2005
    Messages:
    866
    Likes Received:
    1
    Negative, I don't think the two situations are similar whatsoever. There should be differences in the way both are dealt with and punished.

    And I love my life and I don't even like Bush :hihi:
     

Share This Page