Taking the constitution away from the courts

[wing]

Sounds interesting... has anyone read?

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/de ... KX0DER&st=*

[jdsowa]

I haven't read this book, but all craftiness aside, the author's agenda is clear. I'll say this:

9/11 woke up middle American and threatened to take away its Christian paradise. So now we have a sudden resurgence in 'moral issues' because people are frightened. But when the public is the most irrational is the time we most need the courts.

The courts are the last major barrier preventing the neoconservatives from playing on middle America's fears and turning this country into a giant Christian church and throwing all dissenters in jail.

Are liberals 'elitist' and 'condescending' when they suggest that the public isn't informed and can't think for themselves? Just take a look at any poll from this past election season. When quizzed on where Kerry and Bush stood on 5 major issues, most of their supporters often had it backwards. In fact, voters in Tennessee only got 2 out of 5 right on average--the equivalent of guessing.

Instinctually, if you're a Christian, you might see the courts dealing with prayer in school, gay marriage, etc. and see this as a sign that they're trying to steal this country away from you and that the big happy Christian paradise is going away. Fact is, you cannot be elected president in this country unless you're a Christian. So, to think the Christians are being unfairly targeted or in any way harmed here is ludicrous. You'll never see islamic or pagan references on a coin and you'll surely never see any monument to atheism outside of a public building. When this country was founded there weren't any references to God or Christianity on any coins, songs, documents or monuments. That all came later on.

Our ancestors--those who weren't carried over to this country on slave ships--came here to free themselves from the rule of the church. When it's *you* that is in power, it's easy to forget that sort of thing. So let's not freak out and remove the last bit of reason left in this country.

[Piotr]

http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index575.htm

December 9, 2004

?Your Papers Please?

US adopts National ID: Homeland Security Now In charge of Regulations for all US States Drivers Licenses and Birth Certificates

By: Jonathan Wheeler

In a chilling act more reminiscent of the now defunct Soviet Union or the Nazi regime of Adolph Hitler, the United States Congress passed legislation yesterday that requires the States to surrender their regulatory rights over driver?s licenses and birth certificates to The Department of Homeland Security.

The massive US Intelligence Reform Bill weighed in at over 3,000 pages and though unread by individual Members of either the House or Senate nevertheless passed all of the legislative hurdles needed in order to become law.

President Bush lobbied hard for these provisions, only objecting when Senator Sensenbrenner attempted to require these same provisions for illegal aliens but which the President opposed. This provision was dropped from the final bill.

Beginning in 2005, the Department of Homeland Security will issue new uniformity regulations to the States requiring that all Drivers Licenses and Birth Certificates meet minimal Federal Standards with regard to US citizen information, including biometric security provisions.

Added to currently existing Federal Laws and Supreme Court rulings American citizens when born will be issued a Social Security Number that will be included on their Birth Certificates, along with DNA biometric markers. All birth certificates will also be registered in a Federal Government database maintained by the Department of Homeland Security. No child will be allowed enrollment to schools or be entitled to either State of Federal Government benefits programs without first presenting a certified Homeland Security registered Birth Certificate.

Drivers Licenses will also contain DNA biometric markers and include the holders Social Security Number and be required for receiving and applying for all State and Federal benefits programs. Previous Supreme Court rulings have also upheld State and Federal Law Enforcement authorities right to request Identification from any American citizen, for any reason and at any time as not being violations of their, the citizens, constitutionally protected rights.

Major Banks and credit card companies have applauded the adoption of a National ID system as being important to counter fraud and increasing instances of identity theft. National ID cards with biometric markers will eliminate them from having to issue Credit and Debit cards, which for the first time in US history have surpassed the usage of checks and cash. Utilizing The Department of Homeland Securities centralized federal database, Banks and credit card companies will only require the presentation of a citizens Driver?s License to make purchases as all of the persons financial information, including credit and cash balances, will already be known in ?real time?. (The combining of Homeland Security and Banking databases on citizen?s balances and purchases, along with their past and present purchasing information, has been allowed under previous Federal Laws including the Patriot Act.)

Also included in this bill is a law to require The Department of Homeland Security to establish a separate ID system for citizens to use prior to boarding airplanes, and which is eerily reminiscent of the Soviet and Nazi regimes dreaded Internal Passport.

Never before in our history have the words of Benjamin Franklin been so correct when he stated: "people willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both".

Today, December 9, 2004 will be one of those moments in time that future historians will look back on and pin point as being the day that the United States of American, and as it was founded by its forefathers, ceased to exist.

[wayne kerr]

Oh boy. My take on this is that the Supreme Court (either of the USA in cases of Federal law or State courts respectively) has one job: to interpret the constitution. Of course, these courts were divised at a time when there were not 40 different voter initiatives on the ballot. I think the idea was to prevent LEGISLATORS from passing laws that were injurious to CITIZENS, the people whom they supposeedly represent. I don't think the court was ever supposed to rule on the WILL OF THE PEOPLE, however right or wrong it may be, since, again, in theory, the legislature is SUPPOSED ot represent same. Our government moves at a snail's pace. I think that has a lot of people pretty peeved who feel they can't wait four years to see any changes in their daily lives. This is a very interesting time. I think once and for all we will see just how strong the WILL OF THE PEOPLE really is.

Boobs,

SMH

[ottokbre]

funny that a party, who has root in conserving the goals of the founding fathers, get this so ass-backwards. no, the courts are not supposed to be senators with no terms. but they ARE supposed to defend the peoples rights. only a movment with totalatarian ideals would want to take that away.

[wing]

funny that a party, who has root in conserving the goals of the founding fathers, get this so ass-backwards. no, the courts are not supposed to be senators with no terms. but they ARE supposed to defend the peoples rights. only a movment with totalatarian ideals would want to take that away.

well i think the idea is to bring reform-- with a conservative court, things will tend to rule that way, with a liberal court, things will tend to rule that way. someday, as things shift and change, how are we to know and discern that those in the court will 1) probably rule according to the constitution and 2) they have more power than the people in interpreting our own rights. just look at the bill of rights: it has taken time throughout our history under selective incoportation to apply the bill of rights to all the states. a lot of this had to do with the court and their misinterpretation and discernment of the laws.

of course, the checks & balances system setup by the framers of the constution is really quite genius, it just has you wondering sometimes: does the supreme court have TOO much power in discerning our rights?

[ottokbre]

well, i am more afraid of authoritarians then some old guys in black robes. senators and congressmen can be lobbied. if a judge had the power to afford one mans freedom in due process for a crime he may have commited but could not be proved beyond a reasonible doubt, then why should he be made to enforce a crime that hasent been commited?

thats basicly whats being said by this recent smear of the courts, that judges should be cops and nothing more. its a disturbing trend of totalitarian thinking. what would reform bring?

[saultime]

What scares me is that it is pretty clear that ?the will of the people,? or at least a whole hell of a lot of people, would be to lock up all the gays, and make abortion a jailable crime.

I have no doubt, no fucking doubt that if in a state like Utah, Montana, or in my state of West Virginia that if you put a single measure on the ballot banning BOTH gay and interracial marriage (the kind where you?re voting to ban both at the same time), it would pass by over 60%.

So many people in this country are eat up with white hot hatred and intolerance of anything and everyone that doesn?t neatly reflect a reality they can see from their front porch.

They only difference between your typical gay hating fundamentalist Christian in America and the 19 thugs who flew those planes into the World Trade Center is that over here, most of our fundamentalists are fat and happy.

Part of the role of the courts is to use their power to protect us from people like that.

Unfortunately, no one in is more aware of the power of the courts these days than fundamentalist conservatives. They have figured out better than anyone that if your guy wins an election, he?s in for 4 years?but if you appoint radically a conservative federal judge, he to rule on things in a radically conservative way for 30 years.

THAT is where we are headed.

[wayne kerr]

What scares me is that it is pretty clear that ?the will of the people,? or at least a whole hell of a lot of people, would be to lock up all the gays, and make abortion a jailable crime.

Yes, the time-honored tradition of tyranny of the majority. The citizen, particularly one whom does not assimilate mainstream culture finds herself on a precarious perch. She needs protection from BOTH government intrusion into her life AND from the vast majority who believe it is their purview to prescribe her lifeways.

SMH

[wing]

Where's James Madison when we need him?

[Mark]