![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Compassion isn't a political agenda item. Peace and conservationism aren't Leftist ideas, yet modern-day pundits decry it as a Socialist movement - something which threatens to tear the fabric of Democracy from our fingertips. Mention "giving" or "helping" or "recycling" and young Conservatives immediately close their minds to the liberal propaganda which is sure to follow, when in fact its these very ideas - peace, love, giving - that all people, regardless of political alignment, strive for and promote every single day. Conservatives tend to just not want it legislated. That's different than not giving.
Compassion is not a political weapon to be wielded. Its not to be denied, nor assigned to any group of people. Its a universal label, to be applied freely by all. Where then lies the stigma?
The problem isn't necessarily the Right and Left Wing talk show hosts equally stewing feverishly in their spun tales - for anyone with any level of maturity will soon come to realize neither camp is ever completely honest. In fact the very basis of that hosts existence, no matter which side they're on, is to accuse the other side of doing it wrong. My conservative friends don't listen to Olbermann, and my liberal friends don't listen to Rush. Unless its to get inflamed about something - because its the perfect environment for that; An emotional powderkeg. They don't listen to their respective personalities out of anything more than confirmation. Justification for their thoughts and actions.
No, the problem (as always) is people. People who are too busy lining up to be labeled to listen to what's being said. I am by no means advocating "vote for the person instead of the party" rather, I'm asking everyone to just take a step back from politics for a moment and consider the harm its doing to our opinions of one another by way of these labels, and the part you're playing through the propagation of this myth - the myth that your politics or religions are making this world a better place.
If you really wanted to make the world a better place, you'd lay down your political party and your religion and you would follow the ethic of reciprocity: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
I don't follow this advice more than when I'm behind the wheel of my car. I treat everyone how I wish I were treated, and my short commute is filled with the happy thoughts of a nation of drivers who aren't rude, careless, ignorant, angry, or stupid. Hands down its one of the more difficult things I do during the course of my day because it hurts my soul that most people simply don't care.
These same people, they've labeled themselves and call themselves by any number of names: Republican, Christian, Democrat, atheist, liberal, conservative...and they all pride themselves on being more open-minded than those who disagree with them. How wonderfully flawed.
Truly living by treating others as you yourself would like to be treated would culminate in a whole host of other little problems given our diverse nature, but it would be a damn fine start to a better world.
All of them, better worlds.
◾ Tags:
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
When U.S. citizens travel to other countries they also must carry and be prepared to present their passports. People from other countries traveling in the U.S. should also be prepared to show their passports whether they are here legally or illegally.
Everybody in the U.S. no matter if they are of English, German, Chinese, Cambodian, Polish, Italian, Indian, Greek, Pakistani or "Hispanic" decent should be prepared to show their drivers license or state issued I.D. when they are stopped for a traffic violation.
(no subject)
First of all, it isn't Nazism to ask for a driver's license and registration on the vehicle as those items are required to drive a car in ALL 50 of these United States. The only two arguments I'm willing to hear on this topic is that by handing over such documents you are violating your own Fifth Amendment rights or that the government shouldn't be issuing such documentation, but neither of these arguments have been made by either
Furthermore, the Arizona law did not single out one ethnic group. In fact, it is both ignorant and racist to suggest that Mexicans, Guatemalans, Chileans, Brazilians, Hondurans, Belizeans and for that matter Puerto Ricans, Cubans and Jamaicans all into one category. This is just like labeling all dark-skinned people as "blacks", "engross", or "African Americans" or lumping Koreans in with Chinese, Japanese, Thi, Malayans, etc.
Our progressive friends have shown their asses here by boldly proclaiming their racism and daring to suggest that we're in the wrong for wanting to uphold the the Law of the Land.
(no subject)
Stating sir, that you don't understand how there can be such a thing as controversy surrounding what you consider to be truth is the only simplistic thought here. Surely you see that otherwise is occurring even as we speak. How could that happen?
Please read up on the Arizona Immigration Law controversy, and I will be happy to discuss it with you. Try to open your mind to differing opinions [other than simply the two you've stated (handing over such documents are violating your own Fifth Amendment rights or that the government shouldn't be issuing such documentation)] and you might not only enjoy a great discussion but learn from others, and also be a more effective teacher as you attempt to better disseminate your own ideas.
(no subject)
I am very aware of the so-called controversy surrounding the Arizona law. Being a student of Constitutional Law, I do not see how the Arizona law violates the Constitution. Arizona SB 1070 was well within the bounds of the Constitution as the only thing SB 1070 did was give the State the power to enforce Federal Law that was already on the books that the Federal Government was failing to enforce.
As Article VI, Section 1, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution states (otherwise knowns as the Supremacy Clause) states:
Therefore, since the United States has a treaty with Mexico that defines our Southern border between the two sovereign nations, the United States of America has the right to police her borders. This is true on both a Federal and a State level. Furthermore, the Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution states:
Please note that nowhere does the US Constitution construct such entities as the FBI or the CIA. In fact, both of those entities are 20th century byproducts. It was NEVER conceived that Federal criminals could not be apprehended by local law enforcement. This idea that Federal Law trumps all is modern invention of the Democrat party to pre-empt Nullification, a process that Thomas Jefferson STRONGLY defended and used himself. Why bring up Jefferson? Because he was the mentor of James Madison, the Father of the Constitution and Madison and Jefferson agreed on this issue, hence the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 and 1799 respectively–nullification laws.
So I have made a Constitutional case for Arizona SB 1070. As stated earlier, the only possible reasons for this law being un-Constitutional is if driver's licenses and vehicle taxes (otherwise known as car tags) are illegal. Both driver's licenses and car tags are State laws and thus State issues; requiring to produce documentation, therefore, can either be construed at a Fourth or Fifth Amendment argument.
I do not believe that it is a Fourth Amendment argument given that there is probable cause for the traffic stop in the form of a violation of an existing Arizona traffic law or city or county ordinance. The question then becomes, is it self-incriminating to produce documentation in any circumstance and therefore a violation of the Fifth Amendment? That question is left for greeter minds than mine. I lean towards yes, but if having to produce documentation is a violation of Fifth Amendment rights, then driver's licenses and vehicle taxes are therefore un-Constitutional and therefore illegal.
The Fourteenth Amendment doesn't apply here because SB 1070 does not require any one group of people to do anything that any other group of people is required by law to do, ergo there is equal protection.
Please cite your Constitutional reasons for the un-Constitutionality of SB 1070.
(no subject)
Not everything I disagree with is rooted in unconstitutionality. I don't agree with some of the online games my son plays, but that doesn't mean they're unconstitutional. Likewise, the constitutionality of your impressive retort doesn't magically eradicate the disagreements surrounding the law. Sometimes there are going to be those who disagree despite these facts. The maturity is in acknowledging that. Also, a basic understanding that not everyone is going to agree with you all of the time.
As a lover and defender of freedom, I preach caution where broad strokes of law have the potential to chip away at liberty. And only because I'm familiar with your modus operandi I'll remind you this does not make me a Socialist, or a Democrat. Again dude - shades of gray. I have a different perspective than you.
Lastly, the controversy surrounding the law is not "so-called." It actually exists by way a misunderstanding of its intent. Denying it isn't going to make it go away, and in fact, facing it might greatly increase your street cred where this concerned.
I love you for your passion, and your opinion, but you lose your audience when you're dismissive and inconsolable. Conservatives historically allow for a variety of viewpoints, and we will fight for your right to say or do things we may not agree with in the name of freedom.
Only Democrats and the Sith deal in absolutes.
(no subject)
(no subject)
When it comes to law, the only reason to disagree with a law is if it is un-Constitutional or not. Every other reason is superfluous.
The controversy surrounding the law was manufactured by the media to push a political agenda. As I explained before, a Fourteenth Amendment argument doesn't apply here because the law treated all drivers the same, ergo, there was equal protection. Was this ever discussed by Joy Baher, Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow or Bill Maher? No. Why not? Because they don't care about the Constitution. All they care about is pushing the talking points they've been assigned to read off the teleprompter because they think they're special because they are on TV.
(no subject)
What an ignorant statement. Have you ever heard of Eminent domain? That's Constitutional. You would agree to let the Government take your land because they needed it without argument? <-- cause there's no reason to disagree with that law.
You're a real swell guy.
(no subject)
This clause does not give the government power to simply ride into town, throw money at a private citizen and take the land. "Just compensation" means an economic equilibrium; that is to say, the buyer and the seller agree on the price of the land in order for a transaction to occur. True, the Supreme Court has taken a Hamiltonian approach to the subject, but that is neither the end of the discussion or final arbitration.
In fact, if you look at what rights Fifth Amendment was protecting, you can see that this clause was a limit on government power, not a grant of power; the previous Amendment assert the basic human right to one's property (search and seizure are only allowed by a court order called a warrant) and the Fifth Amendment reinforces that righting the previous Due Process clause. The only way that the Takings Clause can be interpreted as a grant of power is to take the clause out of its proper context of limiting the government vs. empowering the government.
(no subject)
Let me put it another way:
(no subject)
It takes two parties for a transaction to be complete. The government can offer to buy land, but it does not have the power to take land. Such a Hamiltonian view only leads to a usurpation of power culminated in a dictatorship, exactly what the Constitution was designed to prevent.
(no subject)
The clause limited the government's ability to take your land for "public use" and added "just compensation" which US Courts held that the proper measure of which is "fair market value."
Re-read my comic above.
Basically, its ridiculous to think that everyone should agree with every law which is Constitutional. That was one statement of yours I should've had the sense not to argue.
(no subject)
As I also explained, just because the Supreme Court has ruled on a subject doesn't not mean that is the end of discussion on the topic. The same issue can be tried again in the Court and the Court may reverse itself or clarify its earlier ruling. Likewise, Congress acts as a check on the Court by issuing new laws and the President provides balance by selecting justices to sit on the bench after approval of the Senate.
Your comic is an oversimplification of the issues being discussed here.
Basically, its ridiculous to think that everyone should agree with every law which is Constitutional.
This is the most ignorant thing you have said to date!
If one shouldn't agree with every law that is Constitutional, what's the point of having a Constitution, given the fact that
If we are not going to judge our laws by the measuring stick of the Law of the Land, what measuring stick shall we use?
What then is the purpose of the Constitution?
(no subject)
(no subject)
Posted by:(no subject)
Posted by:(no subject)
Posted by:(no subject)
(no subject)
Here a thought: the Federal Government failed to do it's job of securing the border. Arizona, a border State, created a State law that was in harmony with Federal law. Because this administration's policy is to give illegal immigrants, particularly those who have crossed our Southern border amnesty against their crime of entering the country illegally, the Attorney General of the United States leaned on a Federal judge to rule against the Arizona law rendering that State impotent to solve it's problem whist the Federal government continued to exacerbate the situation so that the only conclusion people at large would come to is that there are too many illegals in the country to deport, so let's give all illegals the same rights as American citizens because illegals broke our laws.
Please cite Article, Section and Clause where the Constitution grants the current administration's immigration policy, both for the ruling on the Arizona law and to give illegals amnesty.
(no subject)
(no subject)
The Officer has to have probable cause before he can pull someone over. If the local police department has a problem with employing racists, that's a problem for that department to deal with, not a scapegoat for declaring a law un-Constitutional.
Furthermore, since all people in the State of Arizona would have to show ID, I don't see how a Fourteenth Amendment argument can be made–the law treats everyone equally.
If you want to make the claim that statically those of Latin American decent will be targeted more frequently and therefore the law is unfair, then you must also be willing to say that those who drive are more likely to be asked to show their ID which is also "unfair" because those who don't drive don't have to show their IDs as often, ergo, driver's licenses should be illegal for the same reason you attack SB 1070.
Those who don't like the law can move to one of forty-nine other States, not including territories such as Puerto Rico, Guam, Midway, Rota Island, etc. If you personally don't like the law, you don't have to conduct business with anyone or any entity that resides in or is incorporated in the State of Arizona. And for those illegals who feel like they are being illegally profiled, they can enter the country via California where there are entire cities set up to be a safe haven for illegals.
(no subject)
Tomas, please. No one, not even you, is that naive. While your statement is factual, it is not practical, and only the most foolish among us believe it. This goes to show exactly *why* I disagree with the law despite it being "constitutional." This is not superfluous! (http://ehowton.livejournal.com/350291.html?thread=8602963#t8602963) Its illegal, and it happens, whether its supposed to or not.
The last time it happened to me I asked my lawyer why. You know what he said? "Profiling." So don't you dare tell me its okay because the Officer has to have probable cause. And you accuse me of not living in the real world?
(no subject)
The fact of the matter is that the law is not racist nor does it promote racism. What the law would have done is assert Arizona responsibility to secure its sovereign land against foreign invaders, which, in a sense, the State always had the power to do. SB 1070 served two purposes: it redundantly defined what was and wasn't required of law enforcement and, more importantly, it served as a Nullification law and hence a check on the Federal government.
When dealing with law, you have to take the literal meaning of the text, not attempt to stretch the language to suit your purposes.
This is exactly what Madison meant when he wrote the following in Federalist 53:
(no subject)
It really seems as if you're on some sort of personal vendetta where race is concerned - I was profiled because of my long hair, and illegally pulled over.
I just don't think you should put a lot of emphasis on what cops *should* do versus what actually transpires, especially in an argument of this magnitude as it works in favor for my argument - that it raises the potential for misconduct.
(no subject)
I know that Constitutional Law can be tricky, but I would expect someone with your intelligence to be able to keep up.
It really seems as if you're on some sort of personal vendetta where race is concerned
I have no such thing. If anyone has a vendetta, it is you granting rights of American Citizens to non-US Citizens.
I just don't think you should put a lot of emphasis on what cops *should* do versus what actually transpires,
Here is where we fundamentally disagree. I think that emphasis should be put on what a officer of the law should do vs. what does happen. Law is Codified for a reason: to have a list of things that should and shouldn't transpire and the reward and punishment for following this code. If an officer engages in discrimination, that can then be sued by the person discriminated against.
This is the basis of Anglo-Saxon law: to judicate offenses between people over the breach of rights, not for the State to be all-powerful and turn its citizens into criminals. Furthermore, we have a Democratic-Republic. We elect representatives to make our laws but we also have ballot referendums and due process by which new laws are judged. Our system is not one of mob rule, it is the rule of law.
(no subject)
And I would expect someone with your intelligence to understand it wasn't the Constitutional Law I was having trouble with, rather your argument.
If anyone has a vendetta, it is you granting rights of American Citizens to non-US Citizens.
I have no such desire whatsoever, but what a great segue into the problems inherent in your arguments: false assumptions. Your arguments would be more effective if they covered the actual points of contention. Someday, I'd like to not have to remind you that just because I disagree with you, does not make me a supporter of the opposition. Yet despite how many times I've reminded you of that, somehow I'm still amazed at your ability to completely short-circuit comprehension of that idea. It detracts from your ability to effectively communicate when you do that. I don't think anyone here, reading this, is ignorant enough to think I want to grant citizenship status to non-US citizens based on my caution of the Arizona Immigration Law, and if that's what you honestly believe, you have no part in this discussion.
Our system is not one of mob rule, it is the rule of law.
Yes! And that is why we must be very, very careful as to what we put into law.
(no subject)