But not your socialist programs.

I don't know of a single working man, or moman, who wouldn't dump the current SS program, Medicare. Medicaid, at the first opportunity, for a private retirement program.

__________________
If you want change stop electing "liberal: democrats and "radical" Republicans. Find and support true Conservatives; those who believe in fiscal responsibilities, individual accountability, and a smaller government, with less control of your daily life.

Absolutely not, and quite the ignorant statement on your part.

Judges are to apply law duly appointed and created by the elected representatives of the people in the legislature. Despots empower themselves to create, enforce and apply law. In a free society, those functions are broken into seperate branches creating a balance of powers

Were you perhaps stoned during fundemental civics?


Because you favor the law it creates.

However, what you fail to do is contemplate the destruction of fundemental liberty inherent is allowing judges to declare law by edict.

In a society where a despots word is law, as is the case with our judiciary - elections and representation are a farce. A judge simply needs to say otherwise and all law is null and void.

__________________
Miss Vicky - VictorDanilchenko, proven and shameless liar

http://www.arguewitheveryone.com/gen...tml#post709726

Then have the legislature draft and pass a law to that effect. That is how a free country does it.

I realize that you leftists prefer a dictatorship where a dictator in Sacramento simply declares law.

It's time for the blood of tyrants to spill.

__________________
Miss Vicky - VictorDanilchenko, proven and shameless liar

http://www.arguewitheveryone.com/gen...tml#post709726

"Common law refers to laws and the corresponding legal system developed through decisions of courts and similar tribunals, rather than through legislative statutes or executive action (statute law). In common law legal systems, law is created and/or refined by judges: a decision in the case currently pending depends on decisions in previous cases and affects the law to be applied in future cases. When there is no authoritative statement of the law, common law judges have the authority and duty to make law by creating precedent." -- wikipedia prose derived from:
Marbury v Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) ("It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.")

Common law was the first law, and the foundation of all rule of law (as opposed to rule by man, like a king or dictator.) In matters of fundamental law, for example, natural rights, inalienable right, constitutional rights, or whatever you call them, there are gray areas, either when two constitutional rights intersect and form an apparent conflict, or when two parties in a dispute claim the same constitutional right to justify their respective conflicting positions.

A simple case involving a woman and a fetus. The woman has cancer is progressing rapidly in significant part because of the hormones from her pregnancy. If you believe that the fetus is a human with rights, say a right to life, then do you deny that the woman has rights as well, including a right to life. If the woman undergoes radiation and chemotherapy, the fetus will be killed or harmed.

If no law has been passed by the legislature for this specific case, then the court needs to determine where to draw the line between the rights of the woman and the rights of the fetus. Reasoning from Blackstone's commentary on English Common Law, I'd say that both a stillbirth and a livebirth followed by death is not a crime because it would be the result of poisoning from treatment administered to the woman to cure her, and the doctor is always blameless for the outcome in such cases.

We can reason further, that if the doctor determines the fetus will be stillborn or die after a live birth, and thus the health of the woman is best preserved by terminating the fetus to give the woman more strength to handle the radiation and chemo, so again the doctor is blameless for the outcome.

But we can take this out of the woman-fetus-doctor case by imagining that a woman has fallen off a cliff and is hanging on to a ledge from which she can't escape, and someone is going to swing down on a rope to rescue her. If he knocks her off or drops her in the attempt, he is blameless. Let's say she is pregnant and he saves her, but punches her in the process, and her child is stillborn or dies after live birth due to the punch, because his rescue of the woman was like that of a doctor taking action to save the life of the woman.

You won't find legislatures sitting around trying to figure out every possible case that might come before the court, so the court fills in the details by looking a existing law, and especially a huge body of previous rulings, case law, and make a judgement based on an analogous case or takes multiple cases and develops a new line of reasoning that bridges them to the present case. That ruling then become another case that expands the common law.

In Roe v Wade, the court was looking at multiple questions of rights, who has which rights, who's rights supercede who's, and then fundamentally whether a fetus had any rights. In common law, and again we go back to Blackstone and the English common law that the US inherited, the fetus is not a person until it is born alive. A stillborn fetus is not a person, so harming the fetus in the woman causing death before birth is not a crime against the fetus because it is not a person.

The court could have ruled for the specific circumstance presented in Roe, and left it at that. Lower courts would have then applied that case to future cases, and with court review, Roe might have arrived at something like the Roe v Wade decision, but only after hundreds of cases, and with the total body of case law being complicated to both understand and apply.

So, forseeing those hundreds of cases, the court wrote what it considered a rational scientifically based common law ruling on when the fetus might have rights that need to be considered. Lawyers and judges were probably happy to have clarity from the court, because lawyers and judges operate on facts weighed by law, without considering the rightness or wrongness of the law. The constitution allowed slavery, not specifically in its text, but by the common understanding of the meaning of the constitution given the common law of the time. It was common law that allowed slavery; no where will you find a right to enslave another in the constitution.

Further, Jefferson, to make the constitution and common law rationally consistent, invented races and from that created a scientific view that blacks were inferior and needed whites to care for them. This then entered the common law, paving the way for all whites to become freemen while putting blacks in bondage into perpetual bondage extending to their children. Laws were passed that deal with the special problems dealing with property that could move itself; a stolen trunk does not steal itself, but no law created enslaved blacks but common law.

Roe has been compared to Mayberry because both applied common law in a way that stirred the emotion. I believe that both were rationally decided, and as both were rulings by the supreme court drawing on the constitution and common law, they placed fundamental constraints on the legislatures.

Of course, at the time, women and children weren't persons either.... And I would argue that neither are persons within the constitution as interpreted by common law of the time. Simple changes of civil and criminal law would undo the liberals socialist excesses of the 60s and restore women to two steps behind her man. One can't believe that women have fundamental property rights under the constitution, can they? And no children have fundamental property rights any place I know of. While they might be granted certain rights by the whim of the legislature, the legislature can take them back.

Or can they? Should the constitution be interpreted in the context of its writing and hold that women are not endowed with the rights we assume today, or have they now by the passage of time and convention been granted fundamental rights that would have been outrageous two centuries ago. In either case, the rights of women based on "original intent" or by "living law" would be derived from common law applied to the constitution because the constitution is mute on the specifics of a person when it comes to the application of such things as rights.

You haven't talked to a woman who has been widowed with a kid or two who depends on her husband's social security insurance. Conservatives keep having a fundamental problem with insurance, believing it to be some Marxist idea that the socialist have forced on society.

For most of history, insurance was tied to some other contract, for example, the capital to finance a ship and cargo for trade would generally include additional insurance that charges an extra 20% on the profits of the trade in return for not requiring payment for the ship and cargo if the ship or cargo were lost.

What I had forgotten until yesterday was that Ben Franklin invented the insurance policy independent of some other arrangement, in particular he offered fire insurance.

Of course, that was replacing social insurance against the loss of property to fire or other calamity. If your house burned down, everyone would come together to rebuild your house, and in exchange you would join with others to rebuild their house when such occasion arose.

Although, you might not have offered your assistance, and in turn, the community would not provide it to you.

Social insurance works with a small society, but if it is 10,000 people, and one house burns down, how are 10,000 people going to equitibly contribute their labor to rebuilding it. Thus Franklin's securitization of a social insurance.

In any case, when you look at your FICA tax deduction, don't think merely in terms of what you could contribute to an investment account at a mythical 15% rate of return, think in terms of paying for life insurance for the worker to support any dependents until they can support themselves, disability insurance for the worker and his dependents until they can support themselves, and then after that, think of an annuity that covers the worker and his dependents with an inflation adjusted benefit. And all of these benefits are irrevocable and can't be taken by any creditor in settlement of debt.

Social security is not insurance, even if that is how it was presented.

Speaking of insurance, the widow with a kid, or two, would have been much better off had her husband taken the SS withholding and bought a life insurance policy. The pay out would have been much higher than SS will ever pay, and she would have received it lump sum, tax free.

__________________
If you want change stop electing "liberal: democrats and "radical" Republicans. Find and support true Conservatives; those who believe in fiscal responsibilities, individual accountability, and a smaller government, with less control of your daily life.

Mhm...

Let's say that for some unknown reason, the people in some random state hate apples. They just can't stand them. For that reason, they want apples outlawed, completely. Anyone caught with apples faces years in prison.

Yes, that's utterly ridiculous, but it's what the people want. That's how it works. Right?

Oooor, do you think this shouldn't happen on the basis that it really is ridiculous, despite what the people want?

now only 42% say no to gay marriage, so yes let the people decide. wont that be a kick in the face for all you who are like "its against the people"

__________________
WHY CAN'T WE SEE THAT WHEN WE BLEED WE BLEED THE SAME." (MUSE)

The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals and 362 admonishments to heterosexuals. That doesn't mean that God doesn't love heterosexuals. It's just that they need more supervision." ~Lynn Lavner

That's nice - this isn't 1275 anymore. And there was good reason for ending the monarchy which common law arose under. Do you comprehend why it was called "common" law? It was that these laws applied only to commoners - rather than to the aristocracy. Again, you of the left yearn for dictatorship.

Your desire to control others overrides your desire for freedom.

__________________
Miss Vicky - VictorDanilchenko, proven and shameless liar

http://www.arguewitheveryone.com/gen...tml#post709726

If the elected representatives of that state pass a law which outlaws the sale or possesion of Marijuana - er APPLES, and the governor signs the law - that is indeed how it works in a free society. If you don't like the law - you can vote for representatives who share your views. If there are enough who agree - new representatives will be elected who will change that law.

In the dictatorship you yearn for, the ruling despot decides. If you like his decisions, great - if you don't - well you have no say - no voice. But hey, at least you don't have to think, right?

__________________
Miss Vicky - VictorDanilchenko, proven and shameless liar

http://www.arguewitheveryone.com/gen...tml#post709726