Hey, didn’t Dr. Nick sing that song in a Simpsons episode?

The heartburn’s connected to the hip bone.
The hip bone’s connected to the something.
The something’s connected to the red thing.
The red thing’s connected to my wrist watch.
Uh-oh.

Thanks for the tip. I will be sure to add it to my reading list.

I am impressed with Think Progress…. Ray T, Thom Hartman, Rhandi Rhodes, Mike Malloy, Sam Sedar, Bernie Ward are always bringing up TP… great posters here also.

yep. that about sums it up. there is a difference between procedural and substantive due process. But then, if you’d studied Constitutional Law, you’d know that.

On the raytal.com site you could find all pages especially page 51 which stated “America needed a new ‘Pearl Harbor’ ” in order to accept the mission of PNAC. Ray Taliaferro had this page right out there for aqll to see. His web site of 5 years and message board are now gone and from what I have heard that was one of the few places left with the complete untouched PNAC document.

Big Brother????

Excuse me? Did you earlier state that you were not a Constitutional Law Scholar? Yet you dare to presume Lawrence v. Texas is not germane? Your entire argument earlier hinged on “due process

Wow, you knew Lawrence v Texas hinged on the due process clause! Did that come up in your conversation with a Supreme Court Judge? You must be smarter than I am, after all I’m a stupid vending machine repair man and you took classes on the Constitution in college. Perhaps those classes would have benefitted you more if you weren’t smoking crack everyday. Did you know that Lawrence v Texas was decided on a thing called substantive due process? Did you learn that in class? Did this mysterious Supreme Court Justice explain it you in your imag–I mean real conversation. I know Lawrence v Texas hinged on due process. The problem is that the activist Judge throws in the word substantive to preceed due process.

Are you saying the legislative branch( the one that makes the law) passes a law and years later the Judicial Branch(the one that interprets law) has the power to change the law to mean new things?
Comment by mandolin — December 26, 2006 @ 5:15 pm

Comment by Briseadh na Faire

If the Constitution says that no one shall be deprived of life , liberty, or property without due process of law, and the meaning of that law should not be changed by a Judge unless in a way that is consistent with the Constitution, how could the death penalty be construed as unconstitutional. Taking away someone’s life is mentioned specifically in the 14th amendment. How then can a judge say that taking away a person’s life(with due process) is unconstitutional and still be “consistent” with the Constitution. You can’t claim that the authors of the 8th amendment thought it was unconstitutional. The authors of the 14th amendment specifically mentioned that act. You can’t claim that the Government does not have substantive due process(a term that is bogus in my view) because there is of course a compelling state interest in using the death penalty. But then again I just repair vending machines.

All other things that are not mentioned in the Constitution are left up to the State to decide. Examples are abortion, death penalty, making laws prohibiting eating cats and dogs, whether or not you can have tassles on the handel bars of your motorcycle, how many peaches can be used in a standard 8×8 cobbler. This is left up to the states.

Comment by mandolin — December 26, 2006 @ 5:26 pm

I did fail to say that States are subject to Federal statutes that are passes by the Federal Government. If only I could have conversations with Supreme Court Justices like you do, I would remember to mention those thingseven though it’s pretty obvious otherwise.

Right to die and marijuana laws would not be held unconstitutional. Scalia wouldn’t consider them unconstitutional either. The Constitution has nothing to do with whether something is right or wrong. Therfore both could be decided by statutory law and they colud not be reversed by a court.

Why not? Under which clause of the Constitution? For a vending machine repair man, you certainly seem to be authoritative on what is and what is not Constitutional.

Have you been smoking that crack again? What do you mean “under what clause of the constitution?” ? My point is that they are NOT in the Constitution at all. There is no clause in the Constitution that mentions marijuana, so how could marijuana possibly be considered unonstitutional? By the way I feel I can be authoritative on what is in the Constitution because the Consitution is made up of things called WORDS. And WORDS mean things. Therefore if the Constitution does not contain the word marijuana, or abortion, or even vaugely refence said words I can be fairly confident that they are not in the Constitution.

The Constitution says nothing about sex at all, so how can it protect it?

Comment by Briseadh na Faire — December 26, 2006 @ 9:27 pm

Please enlighten me on what the Constitution says about sex? Perhaps I am too stupid. Tell me how that topic is above legislation. Is sex a Constitutionally protected right? How so? Certainly not under the due process clause(or as you would perhaps prefer substantive due process clause). The state could have a compelling state interest in banning certain sex acts such as incest and pedophilia. Are those protected in the far reaching arms of substantive due process? Then again I’m only a stupid bluecollar worker, what do I know? I mean I am close to having a degree and I’m in my early twenties and I read about the Constitution nearly everday after work, I watch all the debates between the intellectual juggernauts like Scalia, Breyer, and Nadine Strossen. How could I know even a little bit about the Constitution. I just repair vending machines. I’ve never preten–I mean actually talked to a Supreme Court Justice about Marbury v Madison(I’m sure you brought a lot to the conversation). By the way where did you go to school? I just want to know so I don’t go there. Do you have a law degree? Maybe when I get my law degree we can discuss things further, I mean right now I’m just a stupid repair man. If only I was like you in my twenties, smoking dope, listening to Bob Marley, sleeping through my classes on the Constitution, experimenting with guys. After all it worked out good for you. You had a conversation with a Supreme Court Justice!!

I wonder if Mexico will treat this as some kind of violation of the NAFTA agreement. (I’m kind of half-joking.)

Ayham al-Samaraie, a former minister of electricity with dual U.S. and Iraqi citizenship, was serving time for corruption when he escaped in mid-December.

Lou Fintor, spokesman for the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, said the U.S. government was not involved in al-Samaraie’s escape “in any way.”

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061222/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_escaped_official

A Sunni Arab, al-Samaraie was a member of the transitional government set up after the 2003 U.S.-led invasion and led by former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi.

He was convicted on one of 13 charges of corruption earlier this year, but the conviction was thrown out on appeal a few days before his escape. He still faces trial on the other 12 counts. The charges concern an estimated $2 billion in missing funds for contracts on rebuilding the country’s electrical infrastructure.

DONT SUPPOSE THERES A DIRECT LINK TO AMERICANS BEING IN AFGHANISTAN – Of Course NOT

Publicly: condemnation

behind the scenes: “Don’t worry little buddy, we still love ya. Those choppers we sold you really did the trick.”

Saddam Hussein is just another of our pets that got rabies and has to be put down.

Ayham al-Samaraie, a former minister of electricity with dual U.S. and Iraqi citizenship, was serving time for corruption when he escaped in mid-December.

Lou Fintor, spokesman for the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, said the U.S. government was not involved in al-Samaraie’s escape “in any way.”

Hey, that’s what student loans are for, aren’t they?

Jordanian Prime Minister Marouf al-Bakhit said Tuesday that a former Iraqi Cabinet minister who escaped from a Baghdad prison this month had arrived in Jordan on a U.S. plane.

Ayham al-Samaraie, a former minister of electricity with dual U.S. and Iraqi citizenship, was serving time for corruption when he escaped in mid-December.

Lou Fintor, spokesman for the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, said the U.S. government was not involved in al-Samaraie’s escape “in any way.”

True. I’m the only “normal” one, and they’d probably gang up on me!