Kansas Votes 4-1 To Allow Intelligent Design

[JoeyKnothead]

From Kansas Votes 4-1 To Allow Intelligent Design:

Topic for debate:

Should Kansas have voted to allow Intelligent Design in order to achieve "balance"?

[East of Eden]

Tell me, do you honestly believe we should substitute the judgment of some very smart men from 223 years ago over the best minds of today?

The Founders were far more capable men than the clowns running Washington today. They would never have saddled us with trillion dollar debts, social engineering, open borders and the rest of the nonsense.

Imagine, these people, as smart as they were still 15 years before the first light-bulb, 17 from the first practical telegraph, let alone telephone which came in no less than 50 year later, revolvers in 1818, forget automatics, balloons were brand new in aviation, let alone airplanes.

And I'm sure the people who first discovered bronze were pretty full of themselves too. Human nature never changes, despite the new gadgets we come up with.

I could continue, but the fact is the world now is fundamental different from the world then, and so we must adapt our laws to the world we find ourselves in.

And the proper mechanism for that adaptation is by amendments or constitutional convention, not judicial fiat by unelected judges relying on their own opinion or international law. What's the difference between that and being ruled by George III as we were before the revolution? I'm sure our former King would have said he was well intentioned and had our best interests at heart. The will of the people as expressed in an amendment may not be perfect, but at least it is democratic, unlike judicial tyranny.

The following is an example of an overreaching court that needed to be reined in, if not impeached. A judge ordered a school district to spend $2,000,000,000 in an effort to improve school results. (No surprise, it didn't work.) Does a judge also have the power to raise an army?


"In 1985 a federal district judge took partial control over the troubled Kansas City, Missouri, School District (KCMSD) on the grounds that it was an unconstitutionally segregated district with dilapidated facilities and students who performed poorly. In an effort to bring the district into compliance with his liberal interpretation of federal law, the judge ordered the state and district to spend nearly $2 billion over the next 12 years to build new schools, integrate classrooms, and bring student test scores up to national norms.

It didn't work. When the judge, in March 1997, finally agreed to let the state stop making desegregation payments to the district after 1999, there was little to show for all the money spent. Although the students enjoyed perhaps the best school facilities in the country, the percentage of black students in the largely black district had continued to increase, black students' achievement hadn't improved at all, and the black-white achievement gap was unchanged.(1)

The situation in Kansas City was both a major embarrassment and an ideological setback for supporters of increased funding for public schools. From the beginning, the designers of the district's desegregation and education plan openly touted it as a controlled experiment that, once and for all, would test two radically different philosophies of education. For decades critics of public schools had been saying, "You can't solve educational problems by throwing money at them." Educators and advocates of public schools, on the other hand, had always responded by saying, "No one's ever tried."

In Kansas City they did try. A sympathetic federal judge invited district educators literally to "dream"--forget about cost, let their imaginations soar, put together a list of everything they might possibly need to increase the achievement of inner-city blacks--and he, using the extraordinarily broad powers granted judges in school desegregation cases, would find a way to pay for it.

By the time the judge took himself off the case in the spring of 1997, it was clear to nearly everyone, including the judge, that the experiment hadn't worked. Even so, some advocates of increased spending on public schools were still arguing that Kansas City's only problem was that it never got enough money or had enough time. But money was never the issue in Kansas City. The KCMSD got more money per pupil than any of 280 other major school districts in the country, and it got it for more than a decade. The real issues went way beyond mere funding. Unfortunately, given the current structure of public education in America, they were a lot more intractable, too."

Cato Institute

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 37:

...And the proper mechanism for that adaptation is by amendments or constitutional convention, not judicial fiat by unelected judges relying on their own opinion or international law.

Let's remember these judges are considered experts in the field of law, and explain their decisions as being according to the law - even as we disagree with them.

On the issue of international law, I do agree that just because another nation does something is no reason to bind ourselves to that something. Of course though where the US has agreed to abide by international law, we've bound ourselves to such laws.

What's the difference between that and being ruled by George III as we were before the revolution?

These "unelected" judges are voted on by our own elected representatives.

I'm sure our former King would have said he was well intentioned and had our best interests at heart.

I'm certain Bush II said that

The will of the people as expressed in an amendment may not be perfect, but at least it is democratic, unlike judicial tyranny.

One man's "judicial tyranny" is another's "judge judging".

>on judicial "over-reaching"<
...using the extraordinarily broad powers granted judges in school desegregation cases, would find a way to pay for it...

Notice here, extraordinary powers granted to judges. If you seek to limit this power, that's one thing, but to use it as an example of "over-reaching" is faulty.

[WinePusher]

There is a difference between discredit and trying to interpret the constitution in light of situations that did not exist, could not have existed when the document was written.

Yes. And that is a reasonable assessment.

Tell me, do you believe the second amendment should be read to mean private persons should be able to own and carry and and all weapons or do you think there are limits? Do you think there are limits as to where those weapons should be carried? Defining the boundaries of such a question as to how the second amendment applies is not an easy task and I think you grossly oversimplify the debate.

The text of the 2nd amendment allows citizens to "bear arms." Arms constitutes Fire Arms, not nukes or bombs. I believe that the law prohibits the ownership of bombs (I am not sure). But the 2nd amendment clearly state fire arm, being a gun.

Now, if a case reached the supreme court that dealt with a man named Jason who owns a bomb and feels that "bombs" constitute "fire arms" and that his ownership of bombs is granted under the second amenment, well that will be for the courts to decide whether a bomb constitutes fire arms.

An originalist will interpret the second amendment in its original form, meaning that fire arms only constitute guns, and will rule to restrict the private ownership of bombs. An activist may say that the founders never foresaw the creation of bombs, and that the constitution must be updated. So the activist judge will rule in favor of Jason's bomb ownership.

No, the constitution was written to ensure that freedom and democracy would live forever in America. If the constitution is "evolving" and it is to mean what the current society wants it to mean, sometimes it will permitt more freedom, sometimes it will permitt less.

Perhaps. And yet they never intended the constitution to be a permanent document. Indeed, they wanted a new constitutional convention to be called periodically to settle the great issues of the day. They never wanted to enshrine their laws as a new tyrant the way some want to interpret them.

How do you know they never intended the constitution to be a permanent document? That is mere speculation and opinion.

You know what, why do we even need a constitution if it's laws will constantly be revised and re-written by a changing society. There is no need for a constitution if it is not going to be read in it's original form.

I don't, and yet we have to trust the American people to take it in the right direction.

Yes, and I have great trust in the American people, that they will always prmote liberty and freedom and reject socialism and any attempt to push communism on this nation.

If we look at the history of amendments, only one was used to curtail freedoms and it was repealed.

Which one is this? and by curtail, do you mean to reduce?

Not really. It isn't a matter of bashing or trashing anyone, it is merely recognize no living human being from two hundred years ago could possibly understand the nuances of the great debates of our time and the belief we can use our own judgment in determining the future direction of the country.

Tell me, if the founders were ressurected and gave an assesment of the state of the current union, would you not pragmatically accept their advice?

They were the people who framed this great democracy and their judgements matter a great deal. As Karl Marx framed modern Communist thought, our founders framed the modern democracy.

As the Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital guided Soviet Russia, so do the constitution and the declaration of independence guide the democratic republic of America.

Tell me, do you honestly believe we should substitute the judgment of some very smart men from 223 years ago over the best minds of today?

I would accept judgement from those who share the same ideals as the founders. There are groups and people who have a different different idea of what america should be, and their judgement opposes the judgement of the founders.

And who do you consider to be the best minds of today. The best minds of today, in my opinion, are those who oppose big government, those who promote personal responsiblity and a strict adherence to the constitution.

People such as Reagan, Justice Scalia, Bachmann and Palin are those that make this country great, in my opinion.

Imagine, these people, as smart as they were still 15 years before the first light-bulb, 17 from the first practical telegraph, let alone telephone which came in no less than 50 year later, revolvers in 1818, forget automatics, balloons were brand new in aviation, let alone airplanes. I could continue, but the fact is the world now is fundamental different from the world then, and so we must adapt our laws to the world we find ourselves in.

Yes, and those people that improved the telephone and aviation based their judgements off the foundations of the original product. I will listen to anyone that wants to promote and advance the constitution in the direction that it was meant to go. I will oppose those such as Obama and Pelosi who continue you grow the government and over step the their boundaries.

Let me start by saying every time you start screaming in ALLCAPS, you lose credibility and weaken your argument. I, nor, I suspect anyone here, is inclined to listen to someone screaming. When you (or anyone else) suddenly break out in ALLCAPS it conjures the mental image of someone inches from my face, spit flying, as they scream and yell with bulging eyes about their topic of choice. Seriously, don't do it. If you feel you need to emphasize something, use bold or. better still, italics. It looks more elegant makes you seem more eloquent, and conveys the message that something is particularly important or critical.

Fair enough, I will try to tone it down.

Now, moving on, we are a democracy.

Technically, we are a republic.

In principle, there is nothing about our law we cannot change. However, with some exceptions we, as a society, have used that power to expand freedom, not reduce it.

Yes, but that will not always continue. It is not a one way street. Think of the age of FDR and Woodrow Wilson.

We ended slavery, a constitutional doctrine, we gave women the right to vote, ended segregation and created laws to protect the rights of minorities.

Yes, and that was very good. Notice that the abolition of slavery came with a bloody civil war, and their was a huge fight for civil rights, which included the death of MLK. Change comes with a price.

Can I promise we will always move in that direction?
No. That is why it is your duty, my duty, as citizens, to fight to protect liberty, fight o expand liberty.

Yes, and I see citizens fighting for their liberty in the Tea Party. Do you agree that that organization is full of people who are concerned with massive spending, a growing government, and the stripping away of personal rights.

Regardless of whether we consider the constitution untouchable (and the founding fathers most certainly did not, the first thing they did with the document when finished was amend it ten times), this would still be our duty.

Tell me, how does changing the constitution on a regular basis change that?

As I said before, the constitution will not change in the direction we want it to. When we a get liberal court, and a liberal congress and a liberal white house, our the constitution will be ratified to meet their agenda.

An example is of course, when FDR implemented his New Deal and they grossly oversteped constitutional lines, thus the courts struck him down on most of his policy. What did FDR do, he tried to sway the numbers of justices on the courts and appoint more liberal justices to approve his policy.

When we get leaders that "associate with the marxist professors" and "promote socialism" such as universal healthcare, then a changeless constitution will strike them down and protect this democratic republic.

[Wyvern]

The text of the 2nd amendment allows citizens to "bear arms." Arms constitutes Fire Arms, not nukes or bombs. I believe that the law prohibits the ownership of bombs (I am not sure). But the 2nd amendment clearly state fire arm, being a gun.

An originalist will interpret the second amendment in its original form, meaning that fire arms only constitute guns, and will rule to restrict the private ownership of bombs. An activist may say that the founders never foresaw the creation of bombs, and that the constitution must be updated. So the activist judge will rule in favor of Jason's bomb ownership.

The constitution clearly states arms, fire arms are a specific type of arm but not the only one. Arms refer simply to weapons, guns of any type that are powered by gunpowder is known as a firearm, nukes are termed nuclear arms and so forth. There are specific laws that deal with explosives, strangely enough there are no laws regarding owning a nuke.

How do you know they never intended the constitution to be a permanent document? That is mere speculation and opinion.

You know what, why do we even need a constitution if it's laws will constantly be revised and re-written by a changing society. There is no need for a constitution if it is not going to be read in it's original form.

There are mechanisms in place to allow the constitution to be changed from time to time and in fact it has evidenced by the number of amendments. The constitution is a permanent document but that does not mean it was not meant to be able to change.

If we look at the history of amendments, only one was used to curtail freedoms and it was repealed.

Which one is this? and by curtail, do you mean to reduce?

I believe Abraxas is referring to prohibition which curtailed an americans freedom to drink alcohol.

Tell me, do you honestly believe we should substitute the judgment of some very smart men from 223 years ago over the best minds of today?

I would accept judgement from those who share the same ideals as the founders. There are groups and people who have a different different idea of what america should be, and their judgement opposes the judgement of the founders.

The founding fathers were far from being of one mind as to which direction our nation should take.

Yes, and those people that improved the telephone and aviation based their judgements off the foundations of the original product. I will listen to anyone that wants to promote and advance the constitution in the direction that it was meant to go. I will oppose those such as Obama and Pelosi who continue you grow the government and over step the their boundaries.

The people of the United States determine in which direction the constitution will go, which is why prohibition was allowed to become an amendment even though it lessened our freedom for a time.

Now, moving on, we are a democracy.

Technically, we are a republic.

And if you want to be really technical we are a democratic representative republic.

We ended slavery, a constitutional doctrine, we gave women the right to vote, ended segregation and created laws to protect the rights of minorities.

Yes, and that was very good. Notice that the abolition of slavery came with a bloody civil war, and their was a huge fight for civil rights, which included the death of MLK. Change comes with a price.

The civil war was not about slavery it was about states rights which is why as you have noted the north was a republic while the south was a confederation. If the south had won it would have been up to each individual state to determine whether slavery was legal or not.

Regardless of whether we consider the constitution untouchable (and the founding fathers most certainly did not, the first thing they did with the document when finished was amend it ten times), this would still be our duty.

Tell me, how does changing the constitution on a regular basis change that?

As I said before, the constitution will not change in the direction we want it to. When we a get liberal court, and a liberal congress and a liberal white house, our the constitution will be ratified to meet their agenda.

I would say it might not change in the way you want it to but that doesn't mean it is wrong to anyone else but you.

An example is of course, when FDR implemented his New Deal and they grossly oversteped constitutional lines, thus the courts struck him down on most of his policy. What did FDR do, he tried to sway the numbers of justices on the courts and appoint more liberal justices to approve his policy.

I don't see the problem here, every president when given the opportunity to appoint a justice to the supreme court tries to appoint someone close to his own political viewpoint. Are you saying that only conservative judges should be appointed?

When we get leaders that "associate with the marxist professors" and "promote socialism" such as universal healthcare, then a changeless constitution will strike them down and protect this democratic republic.

The constitution is not changeless nor was it ever intended to be.

[East of Eden]

I don't see the problem here, every president when given the opportunity to appoint a justice to the supreme court tries to appoint someone close to his own political viewpoint. Are you saying that only conservative judges should be appointed?

Activist judges of whatever philosophy should be disqualified. I would have voted against Ruth Bader Ginsberg, for example, given her past at the ACLU.

The constitution is not changeless nor was it ever intended to be.

Again, the mechanism for that change is amendments or constitutional convention, not judicial fiat.

[Wyvern]

I don't see the problem here, every president when given the opportunity to appoint a justice to the supreme court tries to appoint someone close to his own political viewpoint. Are you saying that only conservative judges should be appointed?

Activist judges of whatever philosophy should be disqualified. I would have voted against Ruth Bader Ginsberg, for example, given her past at the ACLU.

I don't recall where being a member of a legal organization disqualifies someone from government service. To take it from the other side it would be like saying anyone that is a member of the NRA would not be allowed to be a federal judge.

The constitution is not changeless nor was it ever intended to be.

Again, the mechanism for that change is amendments or constitutional convention, not judicial fiat.

Agreed, but you need to remember that the judicial system has a system of checks if a judge makes a bad call, they are human after all and it does happen. When it comes to the law the supreme court is the final word whether a particular law is constitutional or not. This is why Roe v Wade has not been overturned, there is nothing unconstitutional about the decision, you may not agree with it for a number of reasons but there is nothing constitutionally wrong with it.

[East of Eden]

I don't recall where being a member of a legal organization disqualifies someone from government service. To take it from the other side it would be like saying anyone that is a member of the NRA would not be allowed to be a federal judge.

She was far more than a member of the ACLU.

Agreed, but you need to remember that the judicial system has a system of checks if a judge makes a bad call, they are human after all and it does happen. When it comes to the law the supreme court is the final word whether a particular law is constitutional or not. This is why Roe v Wade has not been overturned, there is nothing unconstitutional about the decision, you may not agree with it for a number of reasons but there is nothing constitutionally wrong with it.

Roe v. Wade was a lousy decision, criticized even by Ruth Bader Ginsberg.

"She has criticized the Court's ruling in Roe v. Wade 410 U.S. 113 (1973) as terminating a nascent, democratic movement to liberalize abortion laws which might have built a more durable consensus in support of abortion rights."

Wikipedia

[Wyvern]

I don't recall where being a member of a legal organization disqualifies someone from government service. To take it from the other side it would be like saying anyone that is a member of the NRA would not be allowed to be a federal judge.

She was far more than a member of the ACLU.

I still do not recall where being a member of a legal organization disqualifies someone from government service. It seems like you want to make special provisions for who can serve if they happen to be liberal in your eyes. Again to be fair would you disqualify an NRA member from a federal judgeship?

Roe v. Wade was a lousy decision, criticized even by Ruth Bader Ginsberg.

"She has criticized the Court's ruling in Roe v. Wade 410 U.S. 113 (1973) as terminating a nascent, democratic movement to liberalize abortion laws which might have built a more durable consensus in support of abortion rights."

That is your opinion but regardless it is the law of the land which has withstood many challenges to it including going to the supreme court. There is nothing unconstitutional about it.

[WinePusher]

I don't recall where being a member of a legal organization disqualifies someone from government service.

Being a member of a liberal organization such as the ACLU (that claims to defend the civil liberties of citizens, but rather advances their own twisted view of the law) should raise many questions about Ginsberg, and her interpretation of the law. Being an ACLU lawyer shows where her ideology lies.

[quote="Wyvern"I still do not recall where being a member of a legal organization disqualifies someone from government service. It seems like you want to make special provisions for who can serve if they happen to be liberal in your eyes. Again to be fair would you disqualify an NRA member from a federal judgeship?[/quote]

I never said that Ginsberg should be disqualified because she was part of the ACLU. It just shows how far left she is. A member of the NRA also shouldn't be disqualified from a judgeship.

That is your opinion but regardless it is the law of the land which has withstood many challenges to it including going to the supreme court. There is nothing unconstitutional about it.

That was actually the opinion of Ginsberg, not EoE. Please tell me where the constitutional right to kill a child is mentioned in the constitution. Is there one, because we certainly have a God given unalienable right to life mentioned.

[Wyvern]

I don't recall where being a member of a legal organization disqualifies someone from government service.

Being a member of a liberal organization such as the ACLU (that claims to defend the civil liberties of citizens, but rather advances their own twisted view of the law) should raise many questions about Ginsberg, and her interpretation of the law. Being an ACLU lawyer shows where her ideology lies.

Replace liberal with conservative and ACLU with NRA and the exact same is true on the right. Just because you don't like liberals doesn't mean that you are correct except in your own head.

I never said that Ginsberg should be disqualified because she was part of the ACLU. It just shows how far left she is. A member of the NRA also shouldn't be disqualified from a judgeship.

No you didn't EoE did. Being a member of the ACLU is an indicator of ones left leanings just like being a member of the NRA is an indicator of ones right leanings. If EoE wants to disqualify someone due to who they associate with then it has to go both ways. I remember something somewhere about americans having the freedom to associate with whom they please, I guess you prefer guilt by association.

That is your opinion but regardless it is the law of the land which has withstood many challenges to it including going to the supreme court. There is nothing unconstitutional about it.

That was actually the opinion of Ginsberg, not EoE. Please tell me where the constitutional right to kill a child is mentioned in the constitution. Is there one, because we certainly have a God given unalienable right to life mentioned.

I was referring to EoE characterizing Roe v Wase as a lousy decision, Ginsberg criticized it on entirely different grounds.

Yep there is a right to life but you need to be alive before you can have a right to be alive.