2017 is 1984

[FollowTheWay]

The Supreme Court ~ Designed to be the Supreme, Ultimate decider of a case BASED ON LAW.

Funny how it has become the Supreme Court, based on personal INTERESTS of those seated, don't you think?

Seems if "that" Court has whites, blacks, men, women, homosexuals, Liberals, Democrat, Republican, Communist, or whatever "tag", WE the People can be SURE, the LAW is secondary to PERSONAL opinions of "that" Court. "IF" is wasn't, "THEN" based solely on the "LAW", all "regardless" of their "personal" opinions, they "ALL" would have a "unanimous" conclusion, which statistically is "less" than 50% of the time. So, what does such a "low" unanimous decision tell you?

That the LAW itself is obscure and should be repealed?
or
That decisions are "based" on personal opinions and not based on the LAW?

Either way, How is a COURT, designed to be Supreme, actually Supreme when it stands against itself?

According to Scripture ~

Mark 3
[25] And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand.

You rally against a man who says America's goal should be to make America Great Again.

Since that does not seem to be "your" favor, What do you think? Do you like American division and do not want unity?

The Supreme Court was designed to be an institution representing both the constitution as well as reflecting the will of the people. There are significant nuances in the law allowing for different interpretations. The court needs to look at issues from various perspectives not one. Therefore unless the case is simple and the answer clear it's good that the court's decisions are rarely unanimous. Why do I not support a president who says he wants to make America great again? First of all he tells so many lies it's almost impossible to understand rationally what his real position is. Secondly, the question is make America great again for whom? Donald Trump and his billionaire friends? America as an ally of Russia to seize control over the world? It's certainly not looking like he wants to make America great again for the poor mining families in Eastern Kentucky. He wants to take away their health insurance under the ACA and start cutting Medicare and Medicaid. Eventually Social Security will be on the chopping block. He doesn't want to make America great again by improving public schools, by helping the needy, or improving the environment. He wants to take away the things that the needy desperately need and cut taxes on the rich. He also wants to increase our already bloated military budget. (We already spend as much as the next 8 countries in the world COMBINED!!!) None of these sound like a plan to really make America great again. They sound like a plan to destroy my country.

 

[Happy]

Rev 22:19
And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

What is your implication? Jefferson "took away from the words of the Bible because he cut and pasted in a collection for his own pleasure?

What do you think anyone is doing when they electronically quote a verse? Are they not taking "a particular portion" out the of the Bible?

And anyone who "quotes" a verse verbally, are they not taking "a particular portion" out of the Bible?

The "context" of "IF" any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy", is not about "quoting" portions of the Bible, but rather "taking out portions AS IF those portions ARE the whole" and the rest is without merit.

Jefferson didn't do that, and neither does someone who is quoting the Bible, electronically or verbally.

"made by cutting the texts out of the book, and arranging them on the pages of a blank book, in a certain order of time or subject. a more beautiful or precious morsel of ethics I have never seen."

 

[Happy]

The Supreme Court was designed to be an institution representing both the constitution as well as reflecting the will of the people. There are significant nuances in the law allowing for different interpretations. The court needs to look at issues from various perspectives not one. Therefore unless the case is simple and the answer clear it's good that the court's decisions are rarely unanimous. Why do I not support a president who says he wants to make America great again? First of all he tells so many lies it's almost impossible to understand rationally what his real position is. Secondly, the question is make America great again for whom? Donald Trump and his billionaire friends? America as an ally of Russia to seize control over the world? It's certainly not looking like he wants to make America great again for the poor mining families in Eastern Kentucky. He wants to take away their health insurance under the ACA and start cutting Medicare and Medicaid. Eventually Social Security will be on the chopping block. He doesn't want to make America great again by improving public schools, by helping the needy, or improving the environment. He wants to take away the things that the needy desperately need and cut taxes on the rich. He also wants to increase our already bloated military budget. (We already spend as much as the next 8 countries in the world COMBINED!!!) None of these sound like a plan to really make America great again. They sound like a plan to destroy my country.

The WILL of the people? What do you mean? Every time the people demand something they should receive it BY a decision of the Court?

Seems you are supportive of the courts "looking" at and "considering" "perspectives".

Why would a "perspective" (ie point of view) of a panel of "individuals" matter when deciding a LEGAL matter? I could care less what an individuals (Judges) "point of view" is. They are "appointed" to uphold the Law, NOT, their feelings, and personal points of view.

We have had this sort of mindset, way to long, and now is filtering away from, the poor, uneducated, hard luck background of criminals not being responsible for their actions, TO fostering, and promoting they are not responsible for their actions because of "mental" defects. Simply another ruse that results in criminals adding to their rap sheet and the citizens barring their homes like a prison, locking everything they own, while the criminals crawl about freely to terrorize communities.

^ THAT is not a "great America". It is a shame and disgusting.

The Judges are "appointed" and "AGREE" to uphold the LAW. And IF the LAW is VAGUE, it is void, and should be repealed and removed.

And BTW, making America Great, does not mean promoting Socialism, whereby the PEOPLE are government Dependents! America is Great, WHEN, the government tends to IT'S "limited" duties and the PEOPLE are FREE to take care of themselves.

 

[FollowTheWay]

The WILL of the people? What do you mean? Every time the people demand something they should receive it BY a decision of the Court?

Seems you are supportive of the courts "looking" at and "considering" "perspectives".

Why would a "perspective" (ie point of view) of a panel of "individuals" matter when deciding a LEGAL matter? I could care less what an individuals (Judges) "point of view" is. They are "appointed" to uphold the Law, NOT, their feelings, and personal points of view.

We have had this sort of mindset, way to long, and now is filtering away from, the poor, uneducated, hard luck background of criminals not being responsible for their actions, TO fostering, and promoting they are not responsible for their actions because of "mental" defects. Simply another ruse that results in criminals adding to their rap sheet and the citizens barring their homes like a prison, locking everything they own, while the criminals crawl about freely to terrorize communities.

^ THAT is not a "great America". It is a shame and disgusting.

The Judges are "appointed" and "AGREE" to uphold the LAW. And IF the LAW is VAGUE, it is void, and should be repealed and removed.

And BTW, making America Great, does not mean promoting Socialism, whereby the PEOPLE are government Dependents! America is Great, WHEN, the government tends to IT'S "limited" duties and the PEOPLE are FREE to take care of themselves.

Do you know that the original view of the framers of the constitution was that the Supreme Court did not have the power to change the law? Chief Justice John Marshall usurped that right in 1802. Originally, only Congress could pass and change laws. You go on and on about wanting to return to the constitution but don't know very much about what that means.


The Marshall Court, 1801-1835

Marshall found an escape from his dilemma. He announced the decision on February 24, 1802, and proclaimed the most distinctive power of the Supreme Court, the power to declare an Act of Congress unconstitutional. Point by point he analyzed the case. Did Marbury have a legal right to his commission? Yes. Would a writ of mandamus enforce his right? Yes. Could the Court issue the writ? No.

Congress had said it could, in the Judiciary Act of 1789. It had given the Court an original jurisdiction in such cases -- power to try them for the first time. But, said Marshall triumphantly, the Constitution defined the Court's original jurisdiction and Congress could not change it by law. Therefore that section of the law was void. Marshall declared for all time the supremacy of the Constitution over any conflicting law. Other judges had said as much, but Marshall added: "It is, emphatically, the province and duty of the judicial department, to say what the law is."

In renouncing a minor jurisdiction he asserted a great one, perhaps the greatest in the long annals of the law. The Supreme Court's power as interpreter of the Constitution rests on this precedent to this day.

 

[FollowTheWay]

What is your implication? Jefferson "took away from the words of the Bible because he cut and pasted in a collection for his own pleasure?

What do you think anyone is doing when they electronically quote a verse? Are they not taking "a particular portion" out the of the Bible?

And anyone who "quotes" a verse verbally, are they not taking "a particular portion" out of the Bible?

The "context" of "IF" any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy", is not about "quoting" portions of the Bible, but rather "taking out portions AS IF those portions ARE the whole" and the rest is without merit.

Jefferson didn't do that, and neither does someone who is quoting the Bible, electronically or verbally.

"made by cutting the texts out of the book, and arranging them on the pages of a blank book, in a certain order of time or subject. a more beautiful or precious morsel of ethics I have never seen."

Amazing. How can you say that someone who creates his own Bible by cutting out those portions he doesn't believe in isn't taking away from the Bible? I provided a link to Jefferson's "Bible," which is in the Smithsonian. Many today basically do the same thing by saying that certain verses are not "Baptist verses" because they don't fit with their false gospel. That's a dangerous thing to do but not anywhere as clear cut as putting together your own "Bible." If you think a Christian can do that without retribution on The Judgement Day go ahead. Give it a try.

 

[Happy]

Do you know that the original view of the framers of the constitution was that the Supreme Court did not have the power to change the law? Chief Justice John Marshall usurped that right in 1802. Originally, only Congress could pass and change laws. You go on and on about wanting to return to the constitution but don't know very much about what that means.

Obviously you are the one void of understanding. To "return to something" is to "return to the original intent", not what occurred nearly 100 years AFTER the US Constitution was ratified!

 

[FollowTheWay]

I really don't want to continue this haranguing but but the U.S. Constitution was ratified on June 21, 1788 with the agreement that a Bill of Rights would be added later. That came in 1791. Written by James Madison in response to calls from several states for greater constitutional protection for individual liberties, the Bill of Rights lists specific prohibitions on governmental power. The Virginia Declaration of Rights, written by George Mason, strongly influenced Madison.

A couple of major changes came in the early 1800's including this change in the power of the Supreme Court 17 years (not 100) after. The original intent of the framers of the Constitution was that only Congress which directly represented the will of the people could pass or change laws. personally, I think it would have been better to leave it that way to preserve a government by the people as Lincoln described it. But that's American history and to my knowledge no attempt has been made to change the great power the Supreme Court now holds which was not the original idea as I said.

 

[Happy]

Amazing. How can you say that someone who creates his own Bible by cutting out those portions he doesn't believe in isn't taking away from the Bible? I provided a link to Jefferson's "Bible," which is in the Smithsonian. Many today basically do the same thing by saying that certain verses are not "Baptist verses" because they don't fit with their false gospel. That's a dangerous thing to do but not anywhere as clear cut as putting together your own "Bible." If you think a Christian can do that without retribution on The Judgement Day go ahead. Give it a try.

Amazing! I have oodles of notes in books, that are "portions" of Scripture, so what? Go to any Bible bookstore and you can find oodles of books with "portions" of Scripture; ie particular inspiring verses for people.

Jefferson produced the 84-page volume in 1820—six years before he died at age 83—bound it in red leather and titled it The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth. www.smithsonianmag.com/arts

Men, decided to call Jefferson's "book", with a different title, ie "The Jefferson Bible".

Do you have further information that Jefferson himself, titled HIS BOOK, the "Jefferson Bible", that supports your unfavorable position that Jefferson himself, created the "Jefferson Bible" ?

Also, who said, Jefferson DIDN'T ...

believe in

the portions he omitted in a book he designed for his pleasure?

 

[Happy]

I really don't want to continue this haranguing but but the U.S. Constitution was ratified on June 21, 1788 with the agreement that a Bill of Rights would be added later. That came in 1791. Written by James Madison in response to calls from several states for greater constitutional protection for individual liberties, the Bill of Rights lists specific prohibitions on governmental power. The Virginia Declaration of Rights, written by George Mason, strongly influenced Madison.

A couple of major changes came in the early 1800's including this change in the power of the Supreme Court 17 years (not 100) after. The original intent of the framers of the Constitution was that only Congress which directly represented the will of the people could pass or change laws. personally, I think it would have been better to leave it that way to preserve a government by the people as Lincoln described it. But that's American history and to my knowledge no attempt has been made to change the great power the Supreme Court now holds which was not the original idea as I said.

I really don't want to continue this haranguing but ...

A perfect LIBERAL ending to a conversation. (!!) You announce you no longer want to continue, THEN YOU continue with what YOU have to say. Amusing!

 

[FollowTheWay]

A perfect LIBERAL ending to a conversation. (!!) You announce you no longer want to continue, THEN YOU continue with what YOU have to say. Amusing!

Now you're saying that trying to educate you on the FACTS of American history is liberal? Well, Trump supporters have no use for facts but I still don't consider myself to be a liberal. I consider myself to be a Christian.

 

[777]

Don't read too much into Thomas Jefferson and his bedside book - TJ KNEW some of his Christian beliefs were unorthodox, He was outright hostile to trinitariansim - he did not trust the RCC nor Protestant clergy:

and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. it is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. if it could be understood it would not answer their purpose

Founders Online: Thomas Jefferson to Francis Adrian Van der Kemp, 30 July 1816

LOL, Jeff HATED Calvinism:

Thomas Jefferson and Religion | Project Gutenberg Self-Publishing - eBooks | Read eBooks online

he knew he was "different":

I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know.

Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Ezra Stiles Ely (June 25, 1819)

He also thought all four Gospels were “ignorant, unlettered men” who produced “superstitions, fanaticisms, and fabrications.” Thought John and Revelation was just insane.

He never did make a "bible", but he did cut off verses mid-quote if he didn't agree with them and told just a handful of friends about all of this. The resurrection never happened in his book, Jefferson was one odd duck IMO.

 

[Happy]

Now you're saying that trying to educate you on the FACTS of American history is liberal? Well, Trump supporters have no use for facts but I still don't consider myself to be a liberal. I consider myself to be a Christian.

No, I am saying, your "giving unnecessary facts", did nothing to "clarify" what I said.
Your assessment based on your opinion, that "Trump supporters have no use for facts", is laughable.
Liberal is a political POV. Christian is a religious POV. Being one has nothing to do with being the other.

 

[FollowTheWay]

No, I am saying, your "giving unnecessary facts", did nothing to "clarify" what I said.
Your assessment based on your opinion, that "Trump supporters have no use for facts", is laughable.
Liberal is a political POV. Christian is a religious POV. Being one has nothing to do with being the other.

I agree that politics and religion don't mix. But then why do many people here equate Republicans with Christians and democrats with non-Christians?

 

[FollowTheWay]

Liberaism denies right to life, advocates ungodly alternate life styles, tries to have a socialism economy, tries to have God taken out of the public square, so whats attractive for a Christian in it?

Ignore.

 

[Happy]

I agree that politics and religion don't mix. But then why do many people here equate Republicans with Christians and democrats with non-Christians?

Based on my own interaction with Democrats and Republicans and Christians and non-Christians and observation;

would be because typically liberal and socialist and communist government dependency are underlying terms that associates with Democrats, who openly advocate equality of "things" among men, and particularly favor compelled government taxation, as a means to benefit "them" of what "others" have earned.

Conservative and moderate and liberty are the underlying terms that associates with Republicans, who on the other-hand are more favorable to keeping what "they" earned, and "they" deciding whom "they" choose to give to, which typically "they do" generously, and without fanfare.

 

[FollowTheWay]

Based on my own interaction with Democrats and Republicans and Christians and non-Christians and observation;

would be because typically liberal and socialist and communist government dependency are underlying terms that associates with Democrats, who openly advocate equality of "things" among men, and particularly favor compelled government taxation, as a means to benefit "them" of what "others" have earned.

Conservative and moderate and liberty are the underlying terms that associates with Republicans, who on the other-hand are more favorable to keeping what "they" earned, and "they" deciding whom "they" choose to give to, which typically "they do" generously, and without fanfare.

I reject this statement you made: "Liberal is a political POV. Christian is a religious POV." Actually, Liberal is a political POV. Conservative is a political POV." Your original statement of this is not consistent with the next sentence. "Being one has nothing to do with being the other." I would agree that being a liberal or conservative has nothing to do with being a Christian. I think that's what you meant to say. Is that correct?

 

[Happy]

I reject this statement you made: "Liberal is a political POV. Christian is a religious POV." Actually, Liberal is a political POV. Conservative is a political POV." Your original statement of this is not consistent with the next sentence. "Being one has nothing to do with being the other." I would agree that being a liberal or conservative has nothing to do with being a Christian. I think that's what you meant to say. Is that correct?

I said what I meant to say. A political belief is one thing. A religious belief is another thing. My comment then proceeded with "typically". IOW, not applicable to all, but yet noticeably applicable of ones who favor certain political beliefs also favor particular religious POV.

 

[JonC]

I just finished the book....again. It's one of my favorites. The thrust of that book, of course, is opposite of the capitalistic political machine and corporate greed the Democrat Party would have us fear. In the book capitalism has been banished as socialism has risen. The slogans "War is Peace", "Freedom is slavery", and "Ignorance is Strength" are truly what we have now embodied within the leftist agenda.

"War is Peace" does not mean warmongering. It is actually the opposite. It's a state of conflict manufactured by the government in order to produce the psychological effect of generating support for the party while consuming produced goods to keep the people in place (think, for example, racial protests that were discovered to have been manufactured by people supporting the Democrat Party agenda a year ago).

"Freedom is slavery" should also be the motto of the Democrat Party. Capitalism is, for better or worse, often characterized as a "survival of the fittest", not caring about the plight of the less advantaged, mentality. But the Democrat Party has often presented a social reform propagates social reform ideology, resulting in an "independence" that is increasingly dependent on the government.

"Ignorance is Strength" ties the other two down. The Democrat Platform depends on disenfranchisement as it demands ignorance. The people (the "mass", or in "1984", the proles) cannot become aware of the extent to which they are manipulated. Ignorance is the fuel without which the Democrat Party would be stopped in its tracks. Give the people what they want, or at least, give them the illusion of what they want. The mass, or "proles", do not matter to the Party any more than they mattered to the Capitalists (although things perhaps fared better under the Capitalists).

Of course, in the book, there are no Capitalists as they had been defeated. So by default I suppose Capitalism was not enough to galvanize the proles to rise up against the establishment of such an all encompassing government anyway.

 

[Darrell C]

You cannot be pro-life and anti-refugee!

I am pro-life and anti-refugee: make their countries safe and give the refugees the life they want to lead back.

Sorry for being off topic, that was the only interesting thing in the OP I could find to comment on.




God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

A political belief is one thing. A religious belief is another thing.

Not when Politics is the religion of the individual.


God bless.