Leslie said:
I also don't see how any of those 3 examples are "against" the "constitution"
it was within the constitution to execute mentally retarded? and that's a good thing?
jailing gays for having sex? that was in there and a good thing?
race consideration on job apps?
how is abolishing any of this against the constitution? how are these decisions to do so illegal? and how is it wrong to make an american law after collecting info and ideas about how others handle these decisions?
*don't get it
Their oath of office holds them accountable to the Constitution. It does not mandate using laws from foreign countries to make adjustments. It does not allow them to use outside sources as witness to the US Laws.
Consider the implications of the US Supreme Court, using the same lack of judgement, going to the Soviet Union to use as witness to a hearing on private property. Since the Soviet Union did not allow private property, it would completely change the decision rendered.
This has nothing to do with the rulings, specifically, but how they came to make their decision. The US, like it or not (I'm not particularly fond of it) has the death penalty. The rulings on whether the law allows a mentally reterded person to receive said penalty should have nothing to do with whether Ireland or Hungary or China allows it. What does our law state? What have previous Supreme Court, or state courts, ruled? That is the criteria for the ruling.
Specificallly:
1)"it was within the constitution to execute mentally retarded? and that's a good thing?" That's what they ruled on. Depends on severity of the condition is my opinion.
2)"jailing gays for having sex? that was in there and a good thing?" That is a state issue, not a federal issue. Let the states decide. The one ruling they made affects all 50 states. I don't think it's a good thing but my state had the new ruling forced down it's throat.
3)"race consideration on job apps?" That is in direct opposition to the 14th amendment.
14th said:
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
What I find amusing is, all the touchy feely feel good liberals are bashing me & not the text of my arguments. That is so typical & it's one of the reasons that I have become so adamant against the liberal ideas. When in doubt; don't answer the question, bash the opposition. What bashing you ask?
A13 said:
What you're really saying though is that you're too close-minded to admit...
ris said:
if it wasn't thought up by an american then it clearly doesn't have the same value or relevance
flavio said:
yeah, if we were all as close minded as you
ris said:
don't listen to the nasty foreigners, they talk funny so they can't possibly make anything betterer than what we do
If ignorance is bliss, you must be in heaven.
When I opposed the war on the grounds that our integrity was in jeapordy without proof of the wmds etc, you scoffed. Now you want to play the integrity card? YOU GAVE THAT ONE AWAY ALREADY, GONZ....
Evidently, no one else could possibly have a good idea.