Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
Monday, August 02, 2010

The blog Volokh Conspiracy recently uncovered a case where a New Jersey judge let a Moroccan husband in the U.S. rape his wife without punishment because he believed his Muslim religion permitted it. "This is according to our religion. You are my wife, I c[an] do anything to you," the man's new wife testified she was told. After a judge ruled this was not rape, an appellate court overturned the decision July 23.

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

MURPHY

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

--from the link--

Sharia in New Jersey: Muslim husband rapes wife, judge sees no sexual assault because Islam forbids wives to refuse sex

Muhammad said: "If a husband calls his wife to his bed [i.e. to have sexual relation] and she refuses and causes him to sleep in anger, the angels will curse her till morning" (Bukhari 4.54.460).

He also said: "By him in Whose Hand lies my life, a woman can not carry out the right of her Lord, till she carries out the right of her husband. And if he asks her to surrender herself [to him for sexual intercourse] she should not refuse him even if she is on a camel's saddle" (Ibn Majah 1854).

And now a New Jersey judge sees no evidence that a Muslim committed sexual assault of his wife -- not because he didn't do it, but because he was acting on his Islamic beliefs: "This court does not feel that, under the circumstances, that this defendant had a criminal desire to or intent to sexually assault or to sexually contact the plaintiff when he did. The court believes that he was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited."

Luckily, the appellate court overturned this decision, and a Sharia ruling by an American court has not been allowed to stand. This time.

The truly amazing thing is that this 'judge' has not clue about the Constitution.

This is the same as the idiots who withhold medical treatment 'for religious reasons'.

And now here is the portion of the article for adults who don't sleep with the light on.

"The appellate court reversed this absurd decision, saying:

As the judge recognized, the case thus presents a conflict between the criminal law and religious precepts. In resolving this conflict, the judge determined to except defendant from the operation of the State's statutes as the result of his religious beliefs. In doing so, the judge was mistaken."

This court does not feel that, under the circumstances, that this defendant had a criminal desire to or intent to sexually assault or to sexually contact the plaintiff when he did.

This is ridiculous. I almost dont believe its true its so absurd. What about the victim here? WTF?

I can't find a different source.

Funny how there's no credible links to this story to be found anywhere.

(And a blog titled "jihad watch" doesn't really count as 'credible')

^

I looked at the article and couldn't find the name of the judge, has anyone else found it? Why would the name of the judge not be in the article?

Angrydad--just for you---

volokh.com

And here is the actual case.

Since the red links are in the article--I'll pull them for you..

www.judiciary.state.nj.us

It's also strange that there's virtually no details:

No city, no county, no names (judge, defendant, plaitiff, etc.)...the whole thing sounds pretty fishy...

^

Sharia Law does supersede the constitution. Any Muslim will tell you so.

You're calling volokh.com a credible source?

^

Freakin A !!!

Look at the link with the actual Appellate case in 38 pages for your details.

They don't mention the judge in these cases--at least not in the link.

And then the judge refused to grant the restraining order

The judge then
stated:
[T]his is a case where there is no history
of domestic violence. In fact, they have
been -- they were together for only three
months. Then the bad patch was three weeks,
and then another week.
And then -- and then, the record
indicates that this defendant has filed for
a divorce, he got divorced in -- with the
Imam, but the record indicates that he has
filed for divorce in Morocco. This
plaintiff has answered that complaint in
Morocco. Divorce proceedings will occur in
Morocco.
The defendant has indicated that he is
finished with the marriage. The parties are
living separate and apart now. This
defendant's visa expires in July, I believe.5
The judge therefore found that the parties had no reason to
be together again, but immediately thereafter, he noted that
their baby was expected in August and "[t]hat will require that
5 The judge indicated that plaintiff's visa status was
unclear, because she was seeking to stay in the United States as
a victim of domestic violence.
17 A-6107-08T2
the parties be in contact presumably." The judge then
concluded:
In this particular case, this court does not
believe that a final restraining order is
necessary under the circumstances. There's
no need for the parties to be associated
with one another. They are divorced now.
They don't live together. They don't have
to be together. . . .
[T]his was a situation of a short-term
marriage, a very brief period of physical
assault by the defendant against the
plaintiff and it's now a situation where the
parties don't live together, won't be living
together and won't have a need to be in
contact with one another.
Under those circumstances, the court
finds that a final restraining order is not
necessary to prevent another act of domestic
violence. The Court will not enter a final
restraining order.

The trial judge found as a fact that defendant committed
conduct that constituted a sexual assault and criminal sexual
contact, but that defendant did not have the requisite criminal
intent in doing so. His conclusion in this respect cannot be
sustained. N.J.S.A. 2C:2-2c(3) establishes the principle that
criminal statutes that do not designate a specific culpability
requirement should be construed as requiring knowing conduct.
A person acts knowingly with respect to the
nature of his conduct or the attendant
circumstances if he is aware that his
conduct is of that nature, or that such
circumstances exist . . . .
[N.J.S.A. 2C:2-2b(2).]
Defendant's conduct in engaging in nonconsensual sexual
intercourse was unquestionably knowing, regardless of his view
that his religion permitted him to act as he did.
As the judge recognized, the case thus presents a conflict
between the criminal law and religious precepts. In resolving
this conflict, the judge determined to except defendant from the
operation of the State's statutes as the result of his religious
beliefs. In doing so, the judge was mistaken.

And in Family Law cases--they use initials to protect the people involved. They don't use the names.

This is ridiculous. I almost dont believe its true its so absurd.

It's a half-truth. Something to be expected from Muff.

Look at the link with the actual Appellate case in 38 pages for your details.

My question to you, muff, is why you didn't look at those documents. If you read the documents, you'll notice that they refer to additional criminal proceedings. Whatever you linked to has nothing to do with those. The husband is being prosecuted.

The court proceedings describe the incidents and the denial of a permanent restraining order that the woman tried to take out on her husband. So a judge denied the request for a final restraining order (quite a legitimate cause for outrage) and it was appealed. I think the papers you linked to were for the appeal. No word on what happened after that.

So temper your outrage. Yes, some judge was an idiot, but nobody is worrying about sharia in a criminal case and I don't see why they wouldn't grant the restraining order on appeal. As far as the criminal case goes, the husband is probably toast. They've got pictures of her after she'd been beaten.

I feel bad for the woman, though, since from the way things look she'll never be able to prove that she was sexually assaulted. The husband's mom is covering for him. As far as the criminal case goes, it has nothing to do with sharia and everything to do with the difficulty of proving the charges.

That being said, the husband is a real schmuck and deserves to have his nuts cut off and fed to him.

From Murphy's PDF post from the state of New Jersey (a good link)

THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY
FINDING THAT DEFENDANT LACKED THE REQUISITE
INTENT TO COMMIT SEXUAL ASSAULT AND CRIMINAL
SEXUAL CONTACT BASED UPON HIS RELIGION.

Glad the system works and this was reversed. If any judge seriously used the sharia argument, they are committing career suicide.

Glad the system works and this was reversed.

I don't think it has been. Yet. I think the pdf is a document filed by the wife's attourney to appeal the denial of the restraining order.

I imagine she'll get it, though. The first judge's reasoning was fucked up.

Sharia is incompatible with basic human rights.

If the Muslim world wants to join the global community, they must kill off a system which treats women like garbage.

After all, how can Muslims ask for equality in the world, if they are unwilling to grant it.?

"Sharia Law does supersede the constitution. Any Muslim will tell you so."

any muslim?

really?

hahaha

i tell you otherwise.
in this country the constitution is the highest law.

done.

now your theory is broken like most of your beliefs

#18 | Posted by ZombieHunter

Ahhh. Yeah, I agree, this should get reversed.

If this husband was a fundamentalist Christian who believed his wife must submit to him and raped her as a consequence of that belief, the judge could have made the same bad decision. It's not about sharia; it's about a defendant motivated by religion who believes sex with his spouse does not require consent.

I see no reason to think that U.S. courts would ever buy into that crap and let husbands rape their non-consenting wives.

We do not have sharia courts in this country or anything close to them.

Having said all that, the judge in the original ruling was off his rocker and I'm glad he was slapped down on appeal.

I'm curious as to why the details of this story have not been reported by any mainstream (even right leaning) media outlet.

.

This story accurately reveals where liberalism leads us accidently. Any religion but Christian is tolerated to absurd extremes. If you defend the mosque near the 911 scene, you are part of this problem. This type of thinking is a CANCER and is rampant in America today. The stupid youths of today are buying all the propaganda, not realizing the destructiveness of the ideology. Maybe it's not all bad, however. Look at how the Muslims treat homosexuals. Hope, change

If you defend the mosque near the 911 scene, you are part of this problem.

It's weird to see so many on the right reject property rights. I thought that was important to you folks.

If you defend the mosque near the 911 scene, you are part of this problem.

Freedom is not free.

It only applies to christians so it seems.

"If this husband was a fundamentalist Christian who believed his wife must submit to him and raped her as a consequence of that belief, the judge could have made the same bad decision."

I don't think any judge in the US would be so unfamiliar with mainstream Christianity as to be so easily duped by this arguement. He would have his own perception of Christianity that most likely doesn't include spousal rape. Another reason why normal Muslims must do a much better job at public relations as most religious people would see it as a problem if their religion was perceived as being pro-rape.

The whole concept that if you don't think that what you're doing is wrong, its not a crime is assinine to me anyway. Plenty of self righteous assholes use all kinds of justifications for horrible behavior. They commit all kinds of terrible acts and believe they are right to do so. Mafia guys genuinely convince themselves they have a right to steal from their victims, for example. Why should religion be any different that any other self deluding justification for being a criminal?

Hmm, ok property rights. Taking thousands of acres in North Dakota, allowing illegal immigrants to run rampant across ranchers land, and into their houses killing them. I care about those property rights. You liberals say, "the government needs that land up North for something, those rich land owners should be grateful", and "hey those illegals deserve their rights, too and shouldn't be shot at when trespassing. It's really even trespassing since the white man owns too much land and should give it to them."

Your opinions about the mosque, not the property rights, are what is troubling. You disregard the mosque's offensiveness to the citizens of NYC, and all the other religions, for what??? Makes no sense

"It's weird to see so many on the right reject property rights. I thought that was important to you folks."

That's exactly like saying anyone who has been posting that the anti-mosque protestors need to shut up is anti-free speech.

Watch out Wrongpolicy, them boogey men under yer bed are liable pop out at any minute and turn you into a mooslim.

.

Any woman stupid enough to join the religion of peace should be well aware she will be beaten raped violated sodomized and humiliated. Moooslim men love being able to beat and rape their women why do you think they force them to wear Burkas to cover up the evidence...

You disregard the mosque's offensiveness to the citizens of NYC, and all the other religions, for what???

#29 | Posted by RIGHTPOLICY

How about freedom of speech and assembly?
You know, the 1st Amendment.

This story accurately reveals where liberalism leads us accidentally. Any religion but Christian is tolerated to absurd extremes. If you defend the mosque near the 911 scene, you are part of this problem. This type of thinking is a CANCER and is rampant in America today. The stupid youths of today are buying all the propaganda, not realizing the destructiveness of the ideology. Maybe it's not all bad, however. Look at how the Muslims treat homosexuals. Hope, change

Fuck you religious extremism is conservative ideology in action... I don't care who's doing it

I can remember when every woman rape victim.. in the U.S. went on trial... for being raped... and it was their morality, their dress, their past that was brought to issue and the men were just hapless victims of manly urges that went out of control by some "loose woman's" behavior... men were rarely prosecuted and if they were the women were still to blame. During that time in this country men were not prosecuted for spousal rape either... in fact spousal rape is a relatively current term here... not to mention spousal beatings.

African American men were hanged.. no lynched... for looking at a white woman... by some asshole in a white robe with a cross... in the name of christ..

There is a man sitting in prison right now that publicly declared they even though he mercilessly killed Matthew Shepard for being gay is going to heaven while Matthew s not because Matthew didn't repent before he died and he did...sanctimonious shit head

Religious extremism is alive and well in the U.S. and has been a long time even though... we outlawed witch burning... slavery... burning crosses... to name a few things that have been done in the name of the "lord"... and "freedom"...

it's a whack a mole situation here... why do you expect it to be different anywhere else?

Women of the Religion of Peace must submit to thier husbands will and be his Bitch without question...

Submission starts with wearing a Burka and learning how to shut the fuck up.

The Imam will tell you to follow everything your husband tells you...

RAPE Shut up Bitch...
Sodomy Shut up Bitch ...
Beat down Shut up Bitch...

Why any thinking woman would live in a culture that treats women beneath the family pet is beyond me...

That's exactly like saying anyone who has been posting that the anti-mosque protestors need to shut up is anti-free speech.

Who is telling them to shut up? People are saying they are anti-American and/or bigoted.

like to try that camel thing.

"Who is telling them to shut up? People are saying they are anti-American and/or bigoted."

What's the difference? Demonizing a person unnecessarily for voicing an opinion you don't agree with is still an attack on free speech.

Now, that might not be the motive of the people who are demonizing them just like the protestors' motive isn't to curb property rights. But if you're going to say that indirectly attacking property rights is the same as attacking property rights then indirectly attacking free speech is the same as attacking free speech. No double standards allowed in a logical world.

like to try that camel thing.

Posted by semtex111 at 2010-08-02 12:19 PM | Reply

Dude just got 14 years in the pen for trying that sort of thing in Kenya...

"Demonizing a person unnecessarily for voicing an opinion you don't agree with is still an attack on free speech"

How's that?

You're an asshole - my opinion
I'm an asshole - your opinion

Who's freedom was just attacked? What would constitute demonizing someone "necessarily"? Who gets to decide the line between necessary and unnecessary demonization in your world?

"....a conflict between the criminal law and religious precepts".

Religious beliefs DO NOT exempt a person from obeying the LAW!

Domineering zealots.

"How's that?

You're an asshole - my opinion
I'm an asshole - your opinion

Who's freedom was just attacked? What would constitute demonizing someone "necessarily"? Who gets to decide the line between necessary and unnecessary demonization in your world?"

I love how people will pretend to be incredibly stupid and completely devoid of common sense in order to ask these silly questions.....

The anti-American schtick is right out of the Dick Cheney handbook for silencing war critics. And bigotry is a big taboo in our culture so calling someone a bigot for voicing an opinion is another way to intimidate them into shutting up. In general, insinuating that someone is evil (anti-American, bigoted fall into this category) for holding an opinion is a way to make them afraid to voice that opinion. Even small children intuitively understand this as they use the tactic all the time.

If you really needed that explained to you, you should be embarassed. But I suspect your obtuseness was deliberate in this case. If you agreed with the people I was defending, you'd of seen the logic of my point right away. Actually, willful stupidity might be more shameful than being plain old stupid.

"calling someone a bigot for voicing an opinion is another way to intimidate them into shutting up. In general, insinuating that someone is evil for holding an opinion is a way to make them afraid to voice that opinion"

i.e. "All Teapartiers are racist" for example?

Are you advocating that the gummit installs the "Free Speech Police"? That everyone's opinion is protected from ridicule by force of law? Are we not allowed to make fun of Trekkies and Scientologists either?

Has NYC banned anti-mosque protesters? Has AZ banned anti-SB1070 protesters? Has the US banned Palin from talking?

Personally, I don't give a shit where they build a mosque, as long as they don't mind me setting my BBQ joint/strip club next door.

#16 | Posted by ZombieHunter

Maybe if YOU had read the pdf you would know that the police investigated the allegation--they collected evidence that corraborated her story--photos fo the injuries, blood on the sheets and statements from the imam and safe house person.

The jusge was also wrong to think that the TRO in the criminal case was smething to consider in issuing a TRO in the civil matter.

They are separate and have nothing to do with the other.

The judge was a blooming idiot--a liberal who wants to ignore the law, the constitution and the victim in this case. Take your pick or all three.

It's hard to believe that a judge could rule this way to begin with.

Sorry for the misspells.

ZH--the judge was also found to be wrong in finding no TRO was needed because he states there is one in the criminal case--BUT NEVER CONFIRMED IT.

In addition, the judge said --OH--it was just a bad patch--you know--they were only married for 3 months and only had violence for 3 weeks plus one.

The judge opined that since they were not seeing each other and someone was leaving the country--blah blah blah.

All these dumbass excuses from a JUDGE!

And he cited specifically that since the guy under sharia law believes he is not raping his wife--then the JUDGE DECIDES HE WASN"T RAPING HER EITHER!!

You can have a civil and criminal TRO issued in this country.

#42 | Posted by Sully

You are incorrect. Bigotry by WHITE people is a big taboo in our culture. Others get away with it all day long. White people are shamed and punished others, not so much. It has to go pretty far for a non-white person to be admonished. Look at Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton for example they are moderates in their speech compared to common people.

The judge was wrong, no doubt.

Murphy, do you know he was a liberal? Serious question. I know it seems obvious (to you), but it's a serious question. Do you have a statement or record that shows without a doubt...?

Prag--you have three guesses and the first two don't count.

;o)

Do you think it would be a conservative judge who would rule this way?

Be serious...

The judge is so mished mashed with hallucinations of secularism and contorts the law to actually rule that since the guy didn't believe he was raping her because under sharia he is supposedly allowed to rape his wife--the judge agreed.

The statements and findings of how the judge ruled is outlined in the 38 page pdf of the Appeal. The Appellate judges cite the actual words and actions of the judge in Family Court.

Read the pdf--it's outrageous!

A conservative judge would not think this way--but a liberal judge would.

Do you think it would be a conservative judge who would rule this way?

Possibly. Conservative judges tend to favor the intrusion of religion into all facets of life.

HA!

In other words, Murphy, you don't know. You took a lot of words to say that.

I also find your statement about secularism confusing. You're saying a secularist judge decided that religious reasons were an excuse? Hm.

Prag--just read the pdf and you'll agree that Family Court judge is a liberal.

I may be smart--but to understand the inner workings of a contorted liberal is sometimes beyond my capabilities.

"I may be smart--"

But, in reality, yer a fucking idiot.

The judge made this ruling based on religious fundamentalist bullshit which means that he/she is most likely a religious fundamentalist him/herself - and most likely conservative.

"Are you advocating that the gummit installs the "Free Speech Police"? That everyone's opinion is protected from ridicule by force of law? Are we not allowed to make fun of Trekkies and Scientologists either?

Has NYC banned anti-mosque protesters? Has AZ banned anti-SB1070 protesters? Has the US banned Palin from talking?

Personally, I don't give a shit where they build a mosque, as long as they don't mind me setting my BBQ joint/strip club next door."

I think you're just missing the context in which I raised the point.... Rcade said if you are against the mosque, you are against property rights. So I said, its not that simple and is akin to saying if you are against the protestors, you are against free speech.

The protestors are going against the property rights of the guy who wants to build a mosque on his own property. Anyone who wants to dismiss the protestors by demonizing them is attacking their free speech with a cheap tactics. But I don't believe that being anti-property rights or anti-free speech is the true motive behind any of these behaviors. The true motivations of these people trump their belief in property rights or free speech.

To be honest, the 9/11 families' wanting absolute control of ground zero is pretty annoying and at the same time the people who want to build this mosque have proven to be arrogant and insensitive as well. If there is a way for none of them to get what they want, that's the solution I would be pushing at this point.

Who's freedom was just attacked?

Exactly. Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can say something and not get criticized for it. That's a refuge for weenies.

There are several examples in recent years of judges, municipalities, schools, etc. walking on eggshells when being forced to deal with anything to do with Muslims. Mainly because they (the judge, school, etc.) don't know how to make the "rules" accomodating and non-offensive for Muslims. While pretty much every sane person believes that the judge got it wrong, I suspect that the judge in this case may have made the cardinal mistake of trying to be empthetic to the couples religeon rather than applying the letter of the law. Either way he still screwed up. The best way to help Muslims assimilate into American culture is to treat them as equals under the laws of this land. That means they get penalized, rewarded, ridiculed, etc just the same as everyone else.

There are several examples in recent years of judges, municipalities, schools, etc. walking on eggshells when being forced to deal with anything to do with Muslims. Mainly because they (the judge, school, etc.) don't know how to make the "rules" accomodating and non-offensive for Muslims.

I think the First Amendment is part of the concern as well. The "no law respecting the establishment or prohibiting the free practice" becomes a hard line to walk with the more extreme followers of any faith.

They err on the side of caution with Islam, but not other faiths and that is a shame, but I also see it as an insult to Islam in many ways. I see it as the courts saying "we know the Christians and Jews are mature enough to deal with this, but we don't think there is any way the Muslims will, so better to just give them their way. They don't really matter."

I agree- fears of protest be dammed! It is far past time for all faiths or lack there of to be equal before the blindfolded Lady Justice.

#53 | Posted by Dave at

Hasn't bothered to read the pdf on the statements cited by the Appeallate Court Judges--that were said by the Family Court Judge.

This contortion reminds of Judge Rose Bird--appointed by Rcade's favorite Jerry "moonbeam" Brown.

She hallucinated that a woman actually raped a man--not with penetration of any object--but with her MIND.

The woman thought of the rape--therefore, it was rape.

Bird also voted that rape did not constitute great bodily harm..

She voted to overturn something like 56 out of 58 death penalty cases. She didn't know a death penalty case she didn't watn to overturn. And they were monsters.

I'll have to find a link...

technically similar things are said about woman wanting sex from their husband.

they aren't allowed to use football as an excuse.

al bundy would be in big trouble if he was a muslim.
peg would never let him leave.

the husbands duty whether tired or not has to satisfy the wife.

the husbands duty whether tired or not has to satisfy the wife.

Posted by klifferd at 2010-08-02 11:34 PM | Reply

What if said Husband had one the size of a cucumber but it's now the size of an overgrown wart because it got used up. Does He still have to perform on command????

besides.

mohammad's saying an angel will curse her doesn't make it islamic law.

besides its the hadith... not the koran.

"Does He still have to perform on command????"

no but than the woman is in her full rights to kick him to the curb and find a new man.

"sharia law" sounds a lot like fundamentalist Christianity. So what's the gripe from the fundamentalist Christians? Been liberalized and like it?

"sharia law" sounds a lot like fundamentalist Christianity

:) cause its the same thing

Western jurisprudence has a long tradition of absolving husbands from the possibility of rape....American law did not catch up with the Markland letter until 1976. Until then, rape laws throughout the states included a Marital Rape Exemption. In 1976, however, Nebraska became the first state to abolish that exemption....

www.foxnews.com

Thank liberals and feminists for that.

If this husband was a fundamentalist Christian who believed his wife must submit to him and raped her as a consequence of that belief

Please point to Christian scripture where it states that a wife must submit to her husband's whims at any time.


"sharia law" sounds a lot like fundamentalist Christianity. So what's the gripe from the fundamentalist Christians? Been liberalized and like it?

#66 | Posted by BetelG

Take your bullshit equivalencies and stick them where the sun doesn't shine.

Are you aware that according to Sharia law that rape can only be prosecuted if a minimum of 4 Muslim men witnessed the occurrence and are willing to testify? Can you find anything close to that in Christian scripture? Further, even if you can find some obscure reference, can you find any sect practicing anything close to the sort other than some extreme fringe that makes up such a statistical minority that they are virtually non-existent?

Thank liberals and feminists for that.

#68 | Posted by BetelG

Oh, you are so enlightened. As if Conservatives advocate rape on any level.

Western jurisprudence has a long tradition of absolving husbands from the possibility of rape....American law did not catch up with the Markland letter until 1976. Until then, rape laws throughout the states included a Marital Rape Exemption. In 1976, however, Nebraska became the first state to abolish that exemption....

www.foxnews.com

Thank liberals and feminists for that.

#68 | Posted by BetelG at 2010-08-02 11:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

Was it Sharia Law that made that so, or something else?

As if Conservatives advocate rape on any level.

#69 | Posted by JeffJ at 2010-08-03 12:36 AM | Reply | Flag:

Within traditional marriage prior to a few decades ago, yes, "conservatives" defined spousal rape as an oxymoron....and "conservatives" were against "miscegenation", and women working outside the home, and any form of gay rights, etc etc.

Conservatism had some things going for it prior to it losing all meaning over the last 30 years, but equal rights for women and minorities was actively fought against by conservatism even in its good times.

"It's weird to see so many on the right reject property rights. I thought that was important to you folks."

#26 | Posted by rcade at 2010-08-02 10:36 AM | Reply | Flag

You would rather take a shot at conservatives than discuss the issue at hand because it proves that the lefty "everything is beautiful" idea of Islam is bullshit. The irony is, you infer that conservatives view a wife as "property" once again projecting your own fucking hangups, because the give and take of ideas on an adult level in any relationship, sexual, professional, casual, or otherwise is a foreign concept to a fucking liberal who "knows better" than everyone else about everything.

HBG I need your email.

equal rights for women and minorities was actively fought against by conservatism even in its good times.

Actually, it was Democrats who filibustered the Civil Rights Act.

Seriously, quit broad-brushing with your stupid labels and acting as if stupid positions taken 50 years ago apply in context to today.

Today's conservatives are re-discovering the Constitution and the serious restrictions it places on federal government. I doubt you can name a single liberal who actually respects the Constitution because it is a document that is completely contrary to big-government advocacies that almost universally comprise today's liberals.

"Actually, it was Democrats who filibustered the Civil Rights Act. Seriously, quit broad-brushing with your stupid labels and acting as if stupid positions taken 50 years ago apply in context to today."

Isn't that a self-retort?

"Today's conservatives are re-discovering the Constitution and the serious restrictions it places on federal government."

Especially the ones who don't know the difference between a colon and a semi-colon.

BetelG,

I recognize the blatant hypocrisy of my poorly worded #76 post.

Especially the ones who don't know the difference between a colon and a semi-colon.

#77 | Posted by Danforth

Well done.

That is a fascinating tidbit to the history of the Constitution. It's amazing how much one little dot could have changed the meaning of the text.

Isn't that a self-retort?

Yep.

The post was horribly phrased.

re: Actually, it was Democrats who filibustered the Civil Rights Act.

Seriously, quit broad-brushing with your stupid labels and acting as if stupid positions taken 50 years ago apply in context to today.

Rolling over in fits of laughter....crying a bit, too.

"It's amazing how much one little dot could have changed the meaning of the text."

Almost as amazing as believing our FF geniuses knew everything except punctuation.

That is a fascinating tidbit to the history of the Constitution. It's amazing how much one little dot could have changed the meaning of the text.

Posted by JeffJ at 2010-08-03 12:58 AM | Reply

You know it dawned on Me the other day what Your problem is with the Article `1 Section 8 of the US Constitution JeffJ.

Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress

(1)The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

(2)To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

(3)To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

(4)To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.


I am NOT going to number all of the clauses. I am a pecker and it takes me FOREVER to HTML tag them all. Your problem JeffJ is that You try and link say clause 2 to clause 1 or clause 3 with clause 1 and so on and so forth trying to link the General welfare portion of the taxing and spending clause to the other enumerated clauses of power. This is wrong thinking. Here is why. Each clause denotes a separate and completely unque issue on it's own. They are not to be melted into one another. They are separate issues. So when You try and say the other 18(I think I counted correctly the number in article 1 section 8 they are NOT to be tied to the 1st Taxing and spending clause.

Larry

Almost as amazing as believing our FF geniuses knew everything except punctuation.

#82 | Posted by Danforth

They caught the slight-of-hand before it was finalized.

Also, the Constitution is the law of the land with a provision allowed for change. Don't like what it says - ammend it. But DON'T torture the English language and engage in bullshit logistical gymnastics in order to try and impose a viewpoint that contradicts the text.

The Federal government has 18 enumerated powers and that's it.

Now, to clarify #76...I hate pigeon-holing based on labels. I self-identify as conservative. However, I am in favor of gay marriage and am pro-choice, although pro-choicers who de-humanize a developing life in order to justify their position nauseate me. So, I don't fit perfectly into the caricature of "conservative" as some would like to define.

Now, on the other hand, I have yet to come accross a self-identified "liberal" who is NOT in favor of government control and power that vastly exceeds the powers enumerated to it in the Constitution.

That includes you, Danforth.

"The Federal government has 18 enumerated powers and that's it."

Yeah, we know...most of what the government does is unconstitutional, despite the fact not a single court has your insight on the subject.


"The Federal government has 18 enumerated powers and that's it."

Yeah, we know...most of what the government does is unconstitutional, despite the fact not a single court has your insight on the subject.

#85 | Posted by Danforth

Up until the New Deal, they did.

Stick your condescension up your ass.

"Up until the New Deal, they did."

Speaking of raking up 50+ year-old bullshit which has no meaning today....

"Stick your condescension up your ass."

Do the same with your ignorance of punctuation.

The General Welfare Clause, which is a part of 1 sentence contained with in Article 1, Section 8 does NOT nullify Section 8, nor does it nullify the 10th Ammendment.

Danforth defers to the courts as if they always get it right.

I am guessing Danforth fully supports Kelo and Bush V. Gore.

Jeff j-
I know that I would benefit from a specific complaint. I hear a lot about adhering to the constitution, yada yada yada, but precisely what violation of the constitution has you and so many others so recently so upset?

"Danforth defers to the courts as if they always get it right."

JeffJ refers to the courts as if they never get it right.

Why is it the conservative court has never seen what is so obvious to you?

Open a history book, Danforth.

Provision after provision of the New Deal was struck down by the court.

FDR got so frustrated that he concocted a scheme to pack the court with lackeys. It was such a brazen attempt to seize power that even most members of his own party wouldn't go along with it. However, he sufficiently cowed 1 justice and his agenda was eventually rubber-stamped.

Don't sit there and pretend that the Constitution placed ZERO restraints on federal spending. It's a specious argument and the text and the intent of the founders roundly contradicts it.

"The General Welfare Clause, which is a part of 1 sentence contained with in Article 1, Section 8 does NOT nullify Section 8, nor does it nullify the 10th Ammendment."

A semi-colon means something different than a colon. Even the conservative court doesn't agree with you.

re: I am guessing Danforth fully supports Kelo and Bush V. Gore.

#88 | Posted by JeffJ at 2010-08-03 01:18 AM | Reply | Flag:

You guys are on a hell of a time delay. I don't recall "conservative" protest of Bush v. Gore, and the Kelo decision was derided left and right but waaay preceded Obama. So that can't be it.

So what is it?

what violation of the constitution has you and so many others so recently so upset?

#89 | Posted by BetelG

Recently, it would be the new healthcare law. The must-purchase-insurance mandate is absurd. The government does not have the enumerated power to force me to engage in a transaction with another private entity. However, we'll see how this all plays out when the challenges to the healthcare law reach SCOTUS.

Also, the notion that the Interstate commerce clause applies to intrastate commerce.

The General Welfare Clause, which is a part of 1 sentence contained with in Article 1, Section 8 does NOT nullify Section 8, nor does it nullify the 10th Ammendment.

Danforth defers to the courts as if they always get it right.

I am guessing Danforth fully supports Kelo and Bush V. Gore.

Posted by JeffJ at 2010-08-03 01:18 AM | Reply

The General Welfare portion of the first clause in Article 1 Section 8 ONLY Pertains to the Taxing and Spending Clause. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with the other 17 clauses. Those 17 other clauses are each an unique and separate issue. But do keep trying to link those other 17 with the Taxing and spending clause. You're still wrong JeffJ.

Larry

"Provision after provision of the New Deal was struck down by the court."

But those big uglies weren't. Why, oh why aren't the courts as smart as you?

"Don't sit there and pretend that the Constitution placed ZERO restraints on federal spending."

I'm not. I'm stating the list, since it's preceded by a semi-colon instead of a colon, isn't THE COMPLETE LIST.

" the intent of the founders roundly contradicts it."

Too bad the writing of the founders doesn't, in the document itself.

The 10th amendment was most recently used as justification by conservatives to ignore the courts regarding civil rights for minorities.

Why do I hear that as an echo, and why does it trouble me but not you, Jeff?

The General Welfare Clause, which is a part of 1 sentence contained with in Article 1, Section 8 does NOT nullify Section 8, nor does it nullify the 10th Ammendment.

Danforth defers to the courts as if they always get it right.

I am guessing Danforth fully supports Kelo and Bush V. Gore.

Posted by JeffJ at 2010-08-03 01:18 AM | Reply

The General Welfare portion of the first clause in Article 1 Section 8 ONLY Pertains to the Taxing and Spending Clause. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with the other 17 clauses. Those 17 other clauses are each an unique and separate issue. But do keep trying to link those other 17 with the Taxing and spending clause. You're still wrong JeffJ.

Larry

The General Welfare Clause, which is a part of 1 sentence contained with in Article 1, Section 8 does NOT nullify Section 8, nor does it nullify the 10th Ammendment.

Danforth defers to the courts as if they always get it right.

I am guessing Danforth fully supports Kelo and Bush V. Gore.

Posted by JeffJ at 2010-08-03 01:18 AM | Reply

The General Welfare portion of the first clause in Article 1 Section 8 ONLY Pertains to the Taxing and Spending Clause. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with the other 17 clauses. Those 17 other clauses are each an unique and separate issue. But do keep trying to link those other 17 with the Taxing and spending clause. You're still wrong JeffJ.

Larry

Larry,

I was conflating 2 different things.

Sorry about that.

You are correct regarding the welfare clause only applying to taxing and spending. My point regarding the welfare clause is that it's only a part of 1 sentence of Article 1, Section 8 - which pretty clearly spells out what the federal government CAN spend money on. Expenditures NOT enumerated in the Constitution are deferred to the states as per the 10th.

The 10th amendment was most recently used as justification by conservatives to ignore the courts regarding civil rights for minorities.

I wasn't aware of that - can you elaborate?

But those big uglies weren't. Why, oh why aren't the courts as smart as you?

The 1st 150 years of jurisprudence supports my interpretation of the text as does the language of the text itself. Seriously, are you going to argue that the founders placed ZERO restraints on the federal government regarding spending treasury dollars? That's your argument? Really???

Too bad the writing of the founders doesn't, in the document itself.

Actually, it does. Quite clearly.

Jeff-
re: "The government does not have the enumerated power to force me to engage in a transaction with another private entity."

So, you shouldn't be required to have auto insurance?

It's unconstitutional?

Jeff-
re: "I wasn't aware of that - can you elaborate?"

Can you read books? If so, why haven't you?

So, you shouldn't be required to have auto insurance?

Apples and oranges.

People who don't own cars are not required to purchase auto insurance.

People who DO own cars are required to be liscenced to drive, register the vehicle with the state, and carry liability auto insurance.

Essentially - if you wish to operate a car on public roads, the following requirements must be met_______________.

The healthcare law stipulates that you must purchase insurance simply because you exist.

So, you shouldn't be required to have auto insurance?
Only if you own a car that is driven.

#102 | Posted by BetelG

You didn't answer my question - I was just looking for a simple example.

Secondly, I don't support abusing the text of the Constitution period. Leftist douchebags do it all of the time. If certain "conservatives" are attempting to do so, then they are douchebags too.

"The 1st 150 years of jurisprudence supports my interpretation of the text"

"Seriously, quit ... acting as if stupid positions taken 50 years ago apply in context to today."

"Seriously, are you going to argue that the founders placed ZERO restraints on the federal government regarding spending treasury dollars?"

The proof seems to be in the pudding. And no amount of ranting will change a semi-colon to a colon.

"Actually, it does. Quite clearly."

Yeah, we know...and the conservative court still isn't as smart as you. Got it.

"People who don't own cars are not required to purchase auto insurance."

Fair enough. If you don't breathe, you won't be made to buy health insurance.

I think many Conservatives see the US Constitution as a dead document rather than a living breathing entity. They want only original intent or what they believe is original intent. While that is good in principle it doesn't hold true in reality. While this nation matures so to should the maturity of reflecting upon the very document that we hold so near and dear to our hearts. Changes in attitudes and Philosophical differences from the days of the Founding Fathers to today must be recognized in Judicial decisions regarding the Constitutionality of certain issues when they come up. Do we always have to amend the Constitution to meet the changing times. I say no. We should be mature enough to recognize that what was good 200+ years ago might not be so good today. That doesn't mean we can't hold what the Founding Fathers originally wanted from a certain clause in high Esteem. It';s grand to hold what the Founding Fathers wanted back then to be cherished. But We should also acknowledge with changing times require changing attitudes about different issues regarding Constitutionality of certain problems when they come up.

Larry

Actually, not apples and oranges, and not unconstitutional.

What I wonder about most is why all of the sudden the right has taken to this tantrum of feeling their country has been taken away from them and are espousing all sorts of notions exactly like the arguments prevalent during the civil rights struggles of the mid 20th century.

Larry,

The words have meaning and 'intent' is applied to laws written by Congress.

If certain aspects of the document become outdated, the Ammendment process is in place.

That's how it works.

Leftists define "a living and breathing document" as it means whatever we want it to mean.

(of which you are unaware)

"Leftists define "a living and breathing document" as it means whatever we want it to mean."

Too funny, coming from a guy who desperately wants a semi-colon to mean a colon.

Yeah, we know...and the conservative court still isn't as smart as you. Got it.

Actually pick up the document and read Article 1, Section 8.

Why in the hell did they bother spelling out what the federal government can spend money on?

Seriously, why?

Riddle me that, Batman.

After doing so, why did they even bother with the 10th at all, if the welfare clause gives the federal government limitless spending powers?

re: Leftists define "a living and breathing document" as it means whatever we want it to mean.

#110 | Posted by JeffJ at 2010-08-03 01:43 AM | Reply | Flag:

Concrete example, please! And one that happened under a "leftist" court, please!

I was conflating 2 different things.

Sorry about that.

You are correct regarding the welfare clause only applying to taxing and spending. My point regarding the welfare clause is that it's only a part of 1 sentence of Article 1, Section 8 - which pretty clearly spells out what the federal government CAN spend money on. Expenditures NOT enumerated in the Constitution are deferred to the states as per the 10th.

#100 | Posted by JeffJ at 2010-08-03 01:32 AM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

There You go again TRYING desparately to declare that the General Welfare portion of the Taxing and Spending Clause to be mixed with with the other 17. The US Constitution does NOT list what is considered to be the General Welfare. The other 17 clauses discuss separate and uniquely distinct issues NOT related to the Taxing and Spending clause. I am sorry that You are having difficulty with this.

Larry

What I wonder about most is why all of the sudden the right has taken to this tantrum of feeling their country has been taken away from them and are espousing all sorts of notions exactly like the arguments prevalent during the civil rights struggles of the mid 20th century.

#109 | Posted by BetelG

Now you are erecting strawmen. I am NOT advocating abusing the 10th in order to tear down civil rights. This guilt-by-association thing is getting absurd.

Fair enough. If you don't breathe, you won't be made to buy health insurance.

#107 | Posted by Danforth

That's your argument?

After doing so, why did they even bother with the 10th at all, if the welfare clause gives the federal government limitless spending powers?

#113 | Posted by JeffJ at 2010-08-03 01:46 AM | Reply | Flag:

You didn't seem so concerned with the constitution or spending when we were going to war in Iraq without a declaration of war or passing Bush's tax cuts that weren't budgeted, or ramming through Medicare part D.

Now all of the sudden you're rambling about the 10th amendment.

Gee, what happened?

"That's your argument? "

Show me one breathing person who can guarantee they'll never need health care they can't afford.

Concrete example, please! And one that happened under a "leftist" court, please!

#114 | Posted by BetelG

Kelo and Miranda come immediately to mind.

I am still waiting for your example of douchebag righties seeking to abuse the 10th in order to squelch civil rights. Believe it or not, I don't doubt your claim - I am just looking for a modicum of specificity so I can google it and research it on my own. There are plenty of douches on the right - hell, I remember shortly after 9-11 Michelle Malkin advocating internment of Arab Americans ala FDR's internment of Japanese Americans.

re: I am NOT advocating abusing the 10th in order to tear down civil rights. This guilt-by-association thing is getting absurd.

Why not? The federal enforcement of civil rights is clearly a breach of the 10th amendment, right?

No? You'll make that exception but draw the line at what?

You claim Kelo was under a "leftist" court?

WTF?

Miranda perhaps was. You are against the Miranda decision?

Why?

I am still waiting for your example of douchebag righties seeking to abuse the 10th in order to squelch civil rights. Believe it or not, I don't doubt your claim - I am just looking for a modicum of specificity so I can google it and research it on my own.

Have you tried Googling "10th amendment and civil rights" or something similar?

re: Show me one breathing person who can guarantee they'll never need health care they can't afford.

#118 | Posted by Danforth at 2010-08-03 01:51 AM | Reply | Flag:

Rush Limbaugh

You didn't seem so concerned with the constitution or spending when we were going to war in Iraq without a declaration of war or passing Bush's tax cuts that weren't budgeted, or ramming through Medicare part D.

You are correct regarding Iraq, but not so regarding Medicare part D or Bush's horrible fiscal policy.

Regarding Iraq...ever since WWII our government has circumvented the war clause in order to "authorize use of force". It was after Iraq that I began re-reading the Constitution for myself. The fact that it was circumvented time and time again prior did not make it right for Bush and Congress to circumvent it in order to go into Iraq. In that regard, my position was wrong at the time.

I hated the prescription bill as I hated how Bush and the GOP recklessly piled onto our debt. Now, if only YOU could be so concerned regarding what Obama and the Dems are doing to our debt.

Show me one breathing person who can guarantee they'll never need health care they can't afford.

#118 | Posted by Danforth

Which has nothing to do with the fact that the government does NOT have the power to force each and every citizen to purchase a product because government deems it necessary. If this law stands, then government can force people to purchase whatever it wants them to purchase. With your line of argument the government could force every citizen to purchase a Chevy Volt. Yes, it's an absurd example, but it fits perfectly within the logic you are employing.

JeffJ explain to Me what are we taxing and spending money on here

)To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

(3)To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

(4)To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.


The federal enforcement of civil rights is clearly a breach of the 10th amendment, right?

No.

The Constitution gives congress the power to make law. The constitution also puts limitations on what congress can legislate.

re: You are correct regarding Iraq, but not so regarding Medicare part D or Bush's horrible fiscal policy.

You re-elected him, so your concern must not have been that great. No, you waited until the economy was wrecked and now heap scorn on the guy who plays clean up and you also start rambling on about the tenth amendment...

re: The Constitution gives congress the power to make law. The constitution also puts limitations on what congress can legislate.

#126 | Posted by JeffJ at 2010-08-03 02:02 AM | Reply | Flag:

Do you think, given your previous comments, that congress really has the right to regulate private business regarding what colors of people they will or will not serve, or whether or not a man may rape his wife?

If you do, you sound like a liberal.

JeffJ explain to Me what are we taxing and spending money on here

What you produced is what our government CAN spend money on, Larry.

The 10th stipulates that any other expenditure is deferred to the states.

While what you've produced is moderately broad, it's not all-encompassing as Danforth stipulates.

You know I find it funny that those people that scream 10 amendment live in States where they still receive Federal tax dollars for projects in their home state. You know if these 10 amendmenters were actually serious about supposedly upholding the 10 amendment they would be protesting their States for taking Federal monies. Last time I checked a person could not declare themself wholy independent unless they were off of Mommy and Daddy's money and making their own solely and completely on their own.

Larry

"The 10th stipulates that any other expenditure is deferred to the states."

No it doesn't. The word it uses is POWERS, not expenditures.

What you produced is what our government CAN spend money on, Larry.

The 10th stipulates that any other expenditure is deferred to the states.

While what you've produced is moderately broad, it's not all-encompassing as Danforth stipulates.

#129 | Posted by JeffJ at 2010-08-03 02:07 AM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

No I didn't but continue with your fallacy

Until later, Jeff. Good luck with the 10th amendment, your outreach to minorities, and this guy:

Dear Mr. Lincoln

We Colored People have taken a vote and decided that we don't cotton to that whole emancipation thing. Freedom means having to work for real, think for ourselves, and take consequences along with the rewards. That is just far too much to ask of us Colored People and we demand that it stop!

In fact we held a big meeting and took a vote in Kansas City this week. We voted to condemn a political revival of that old abolitionist spirit called the 'tea party movement'.

The tea party position to "end the bailouts" for example is just silly. Bailouts are just big money welfare and isn't that what we want all Coloreds to strive for? What kind of racist would want to end big money welfare? What they need to do is start handing the bail outs directly to us coloreds! Of course, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is the only responsible party that should be granted the right to disperse the funds.

And the ridiculous idea of "reduce[ing] the size and intrusiveness of government." What kind of massa would ever not want to control my life? As Coloreds we must have somebody care for us otherwise we would be on our own, have to think for ourselves and make decisions!

The racist tea parties also demand that the government "stop the out of control spending." Again, they directly target Colored People. That means we Colored People would have to compete for jobs like everybody else and that is just not right.

Perhaps the most racist point of all in the tea parties is their demand that government "stop raising our taxes." That is outrageous! How will we Colored People ever get a wide screen TV in every room if non-coloreds get to keep what they earn? Totally racist! The tea party expects coloreds to be productive members of society?

Mr. Lincoln, you were the greatest racist ever. We had a great gig. Three squares, room and board, all our decisions made by the massa in the house. Please repeal the 13th and 14th Amendments and let us get back to where we belong.

Sincerely

Precious Ben Jealous, Tom's Nephew National Association for the Advancement of Colored People Head Colored Person

gawker.com

Helvering v. Davis,[14] the Supreme Court interpreted the clause even more expansively, conferring upon Congress a plenary power to impose taxes and to spend money for the general welfare subject almost entirely to its own discretion. Even more recently, the Court has included the power to indirectly coerce the states into adopting national standards by threatening to withhold federal funds in South Dakota v. Dole.[15] To date, the Hamiltonian view of the General Welfare Clause predominates in case law.

Have you tried Googling "10th amendment and civil rights" or something similar?

#122 | Posted by BetelG

Your reference to it today was my first exposure to it. Of course I can google it, now that I've been made aware. I thought that you might, in 1 or 2 sentences, provide a modicum of specificity to facilitate my search. But I guess I forgot your aversion to answering questions.

Do you think, given your previous comments, that congress really has the right to regulate private business regarding what colors of people they will or will not serve, or whether or not a man may rape his wife?

Yes.

You re-elected him, so your concern must not have been that great.

I re-elected him because I thought a liberal would be even more fiscally irresponsible. Obama has proven me right.

No, you waited until the economy was wrecked

The economy was wrecked due in part to a housing bust. That was facillitated by Fannie and Freddie and a program rolled out in 1999 to make housing more affordable to the poor - in fact the NYTimes back then predicted this would happen. Twice Republicans during the Bush years tried to reign in Fannie and Freddy. Both times it was killed in committee by a 100% unified front by committee Dems and by a Republican asshole named Kit Bond.

now heap scorn on the guy who plays clean up

Clean up? You mean appropriating almost a Trillion dollars of stimulus (yeah it worked so well for Japan in the '90s) of which only 4% went to infrastructure, etc? That kind of clean-up? You mean creating a whole new entitlement that only exacerbates our debt when we can't even pay for the entitlements we already have? That kind of clean-up?

you also start rambling on about the tenth amendment...

Whereas you pretend it doesn't exist so you can try and justify limitless federal power....

No it doesn't. The word it uses is POWERS, not expenditures.

#131 | Posted by Danforth

Agreed. However expenditures are part of the powers enumerated to government by the Constitution, so it still applies.

No I didn't but continue with your fallacy

#132 | Posted by LarryMohr

Ok. Then what can't the federal government spend money on according to your understanding of the Constitution.

133 | Posted by BetelG

Thanks for the link. That parody was absurd. Just don't pretend that it's representative of every conservative and/or Tea Party member in this country. Such an insinuation is equally absurd.

Gotta run guys, work beckons.

I appreciate the good discussion.

You all have a great night.

Helvering v. Davis,[14] the Supreme Court interpreted the clause even more expansively, conferring upon Congress a plenary power to impose taxes and to spend money for the general welfare subject almost entirely to its own discretion.

In order to do so, they had to pretend that the welfare clause was the only language contained within Article 1, Section 8 AND that the 10th simply doesn't exist.

HORRIBLE adjudication - worse than Kelo, and that's saying something.

"Agreed. However expenditures are part of the powers enumerated to government by the Constitution, so it still applies."

Do the goalposts make you strain when you have to move them that far?

"In order to do so, they had to pretend that the welfare clause was the only language contained within Article 1, Section 8"

Well that, or they know the difference between a colon and a semi-colon.

Ok. Then what can't the federal government spend money on according to your understanding of the Constitution.

#136 | Posted by JeffJ at 2010-08-03 02:24 AM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Helvering v. Davis,[14] the Supreme Court interpreted the clause even more expansively, conferring upon Congress a plenary power to impose taxes and to spend money for the general welfare subject almost entirely to its own discretion.

Not much they can't spend money on.

re:"Your reference to it today was my first exposure to it."

And why is that?

Hannity not giving you the intelligence you require not to look like an ignorant fool?

For JeffJ

Semicolon

a punctuation mark used to separate two parts of a compound sentence when they are not connected by a conjunction.
rmfs1.ortn.edu/myschool/mcain/
Web/Grammar%20Flashcards.mht

When Larry is giving out grammar lessons even when He looked them up first You know you're in a very bad way.

" That was facillitated by Fannie and Freddie and a program rolled out in 1999 to make housing more affordable to the poor"

Try again. CRA loans had a lower default rate than non-CRA loans. The problem wasn't a handful of poor folks who got told they could afford what the lenders knew they couldn't. It was the institutions leveraging those bad bets against other bad bets at unprecedented levels.

Jeff J-
...and you hadn't heard of Mark Williams racist barf? Mark Williams was the head of a large tea party organization in Florida backed by the Republican Party. You've been listening to weeks of "the NAACP is racist" claptrap and yet hadn't read Williams repugnant response to the accusation that there were racist elements in the tea party?

Maybe you need better information that the right wing echo chamber of denial and stupidity you evidently rely on for your picture of the world.

People become like those they follow.

Adherents become like the head of their respective religions/philosophies, so NONE of us escape this...

The husband is just acting like the rapist Mohammad, who had sex with a nine year old (and married her when she was 6).

The "insanity" of religion(s) must continually be fought against.

It is hard to prove non consent when you are married to the person.
But that guy had better watch out because i have heard of women doing things to men when they are sleeping.
If he is to remain married to her he really shouldn't make her mad.

Sharih is coming! These local judges are BUSH league palyers. I am glad that the appel over turned this dummy on the bench.

There may be a bit of hope for us after all.

Comments are closed for this entry.


Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Copyright 2012 World Readable