After reading the above post, I had to check to see if you actually said this. You did.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Hate crime bill passes House
- Thread starter windcatcher
- Start date
After reading the above post, I had to check to see if you actually said this. You did.
No, we already have laws against murder. Just properly enforce those laws. We don't need laws that try to criminalize thought. Of course, it doesn't surprise me that a socialist like yourself supports this. It just goes to bolster my thesis in another thread. Socialism, by its very nature, is anti-freedom. It is godless to the core. I hope you wake up some day from your sinful slumber.So here we are again, I don't condone the g@y lifestyle but they are still people created by God who deserve to be treated as such. However, as long as we have people who feel the murder of a g@y person is a hoax, we need these laws.
This is one of the most ignorant statements I have read on this forum. LB, please stop posting on matters like this until you've taken a remedial course on U.S. civics.
The Judicial Branch was specifically setup to provide a check against the Legislative Branch if they ever passed a law that was unconstitutional. You do understand the constitutional system of checks and balances, correct?
Excellent point.
I sincerely hope that our elected officials begin to understand checks and balances. Unfortunately, they seem to have forgotten this basic tenet of US Government.
And because people hold views like this, unconstitutional, dangerous legislation such as "hate-crime" bills end up on the books.
Magnetic Poles
New Member
The same goes for folks who don't like judicial overview, and when the courts make a ruling they personally don't like, they cry about "activist judges" and "legislating from the bench".Excellent point.
I sincerely hope that our elected officials begin to understand checks and balances. Unfortunately, they seem to have forgotten this basic tenet of US Government.
Just as LB made the mistake of thinking every law Congress passes must be constitutional, you seem to make the same mistake by thinking every ruling the Judicial Branch makes is fine and dandy. Not the case. Sometimes the courts make bad decisions that are also unconstitutional or extra-constitutional.The same goes for folks who don't like judicial overview, and when the courts make a ruling they personally don't like, they cry about "activist judges" and "legislating from the bench".
The same goes for folks who don't like judicial overview, and when the courts make a ruling they personally don't like, they cry about "activist judges" and "legislating from the bench".
We have the line between "interpreting" and "legislating" law.
Fine as it is, sometimes, that is the distinction.
Magnetic Poles
New Member
Not at all. There are lower courts and higher courts. Rulings get overturned on appeal. Thanks for making my point very clearly.Just as LB made the mistake of thinking every law Congress passes must be constitutional, you seem to make the same mistake by thinking every ruling the Judicial Branch makes is fine and dandy. Not the case. Sometimes the courts make bad decisions that are also unconstitutional or extra-constitutional.
My point was, sometimes the courts do legislate from the bench, even the SCOTUS does this sometimes. You seem to be saying that anyone who cries against judicial activism is wrong. Sometimes the cry is right.Not at all. There are lower courts and higher courts. Rulings get overturned on appeal. Thanks for making my point very clearly.
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
According to the constitution congress can make laws. How can any law congress makes be unconstitutional? That is the problem, you guys read one article in the constitution and totally ignore the rest.
A perfect example of what is wrong with the liberal/leftist/Fascist party in this country. I would not believe you were this unlearned about government if I had not read it. Again I invite you to come out of the dark side.
This is one of the most ignorant statements I have read on this forum. LB, please stop posting on matters like this until you've taken a remedial course on U.S. civics.
The Judicial Branch was specifically setup to provide a check against the Legislative Branch if they ever passed a law that was unconstitutional. You do understand the constitutional system of checks and balances, correct?
You miss one key point, the constitution can be amended by congress...
Example... Slavery... The supreme court decided it was constitutional for decades... Since congress passed the 13th amendment, supreme court has nothing to decide.
Perhaps I was awake in civics and you were the one sleep...
No, we already have laws against murder. Just properly enforce those laws. We don't need laws that try to criminalize thought. Of course, it doesn't surprise me that a socialist like yourself supports this. It just goes to bolster my thesis in another thread. Socialism, by its very nature, is anti-freedom. It is godless to the core. I hope you wake up some day from your sinful slumber.
As I stated before, it would be nice if all laws were properly enforced. However, local laws are left to the locality to enforce. Not everyone in a locality will get proper enforcement of laws and unfortunately, the only way to fix that is to make federal or overriding laws.
Ex... For years a white person could hang a black person in the south and there was no jury or judge who would properly enforce the current laws. No one could override the locality since it was their laws and their courts.
There was no end in sight until the feds passed civil rights legislation so these people could be tried in federal courts. I think it's a shame that a murderer would be sent to prison for violating someones civil rights instead of murder but what can you do?
Freedom is a two way street. Your freedom doesn't mean you can infringe on my freedom. When one man is free to murder another man with no repercussion then what we have is not the freedom or liberty intended in the constitution or justice presented in scripture. It is this view of freedom or its defense that is "godless to the core" and I equally hope you will wake from your sinful slumber.
I see nothing in this legislation that criminalize thoughts or the other conservative talking point, making it illegal for a preacher to preach against homosexu@lity. If you can show me those in this legislation I will gladly retract my support for this legislation.
I don't endorse the lifestyle but the people are still people and are souls placed here by God. I may not like your politics or way of life but the golden rule still says I must treat you how I would like to be treated.
A perfect example of what is wrong with the liberal/leftist/Fascist party in this country. I would not believe you were this unlearned about government if I had not read it. Again I invite you to come out of the dark side.
I invite you to become a full fledge citizen of the USA. Our founding fathers cleverly left avenues for the constitution to be changed. That is the one variable you guys seem to overlook. You present the constitution as this static document. It is not. It is a living breathing document that has and will change to accommodate situations that were not present when it was originally written.
It is constitutional for congress to amend the constitution and so my statement stands.
My point was, sometimes the courts do legislate from the bench, even the SCOTUS does this sometimes. You seem to be saying that anyone who cries against judicial activism is wrong. Sometimes the cry is right.
Good point... However, here the problem I see. Why is it most supreme court decisions are split 4 to 5? I mean if the laws or constitutionality of something is that black and white like you all pretend, why would great legal scholars such as these be split on their decision?
In that light, is it really possible to eliminate judicial activism from he court?
Here is another point that I hope can be received in the light intended, many us here are waiting for the court to change so to over turn Roe v Wade. This means we are looking for a judge whose legislative view is pro-life. Doesn't this mean we are equally looking for a judicial activist?
Now before someone mentions I voted for Obama, I need to remind you that 7 of the current 9 justices were put in the court by Republican's and Roe v Wade still stands... Voting GOP doesn't mean you did anything for ending abortion anymore than going to Church means someone is saved...
... many us here are waiting for the court to change so to over turn Roe v Wade. This means we are looking for a judge whose legislative view is pro-life.
Oh puhhhleez !!!
Don't even try to pretend that you are one of the "us" that you are talking about.
..................................................................
Last edited by a moderator:
Oh puhhhleez !!!
Don't even try to pretend that you are one of the "us" that you are talking about.
Why is it I can't want to see Roe v Wade overturned?
Why is it I can't want to see Roe v Wade overturned?
Because your actions say otherwise. When presented with the opportunity to act in a way consistent with your supposed desires you chose instead to vote for the guy who is least likely to select judges who will over turn Roe v Wade.
SeekingTruth
Member
I invite you to become a full fledge citizen of the USA. Our founding fathers cleverly left avenues for the constitution to be changed. That is the one variable you guys seem to overlook. You present the constitution as this static document. It is not. It is a living breathing document that has and will change to accommodate situations that were not present when it was originally written.
It is constitutional for congress to amend the constitution and so my statement stands.
Simple, one set of laws are locally enforced while other laws are enforced federally. Take civil rights and the deep south, a black man could be hung from a tree and there was no white jury in the south that would ever convict them (local laws). It was finally stopped with federal laws. The civil rights act made it a federal crime which means it would be tried in federal and not local courts. That is the only way the black man found justice.
According to the constitution congress can make laws. How can any law congress makes be unconstitutional? That is the problem, you guys read one article in the constitution and totally ignore the rest.
LB, I believe the reality is that Congress proposes an amendment and the states then must ratify the amendment. So it seems to me that Congress does not amend the Constitution, but rather initiates the process.
That being the case, Congress can and has passed laws and the pres has signed them, that were declared unconstitutional by the Supremes. Now, I will agree that an amendment ratified by the states in itself cannot be declared unconstitutional, since it has in fact changed the Constitution.
I will not address your ridiculous comment in the second quote that "and there was no white jury in the south that would ever convict them (local laws)". Did you research every case of this nature before you arrived at this conclusion? Can you provide proof that no jury would convict?
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
It is constitutional for congress to amend the constitution and so my statement stands.
You are showing your ignorance of the Constitution but that is typical of democrats/leftists/Fascists. The Congress cannot amend the Constitution. They can vote by two thirds to amend the Constitution but it takes approval by three fourths of the states.