Maxim Magazine Helmet Question

Re: My Last Word On Helmets.

The Supreme Court has uconstitutionally usurped its power to legislate. The Supreme Court was never intended to decide what rights are defendable and which are not. The court has used this amendment to force many kinds of unpopular legislation upon the people over the years, the most repugnant being a non-existent right to privacy which was the basis for an abortion mandate. The ninth amendment does not guarantee any rights in particular, it merely states that there are rights, not specifically enumerated, that exist. The enumerated rights should be enough to provide for the protection of so-called unenumerated rights, provided that the enumerated rights are themselves respected. For example: the Court decided in Conneticut vs. Griswold that there was a right to marital privacy or, more accurately, a right to use contraception. The local laws were limiting in this respect. Provided that manufacture, sale, and possession of contraceptives was legal, property rights, rights against search and seizure, and the fifth amendment (due process of law) should be enough to protect those that wish to use contraceptives. The right to marital privacy did not exist, no matter how much the court wanted it to. The law against contraceptives was constitutional, since any rights not enumerated are reserved to the the states and the people. If popularity for a law against contraceptives was high enough, passing a law against contraceptives is perfectly constitutional. However, the other specifically enumerated rights previously mentioned would make prosecution difficult at best. Property rights and protection against search and seizure would effectively prohibit the gathering of evidence.

Re: The Sausage Emperor Has no Clothes!

Let's go back to what you said here, buddy.

Well, Abe, if the Supreme Court has acted unconstitutionally, it''s the first I''ve heard of it. I''d love to reference some reputable legal scholars who agree with you. But there''s a long, long body of cases, going back to Marbury v. Madison, that gives the Supreme Court the power to decide on the Constitutional validity of state and Federal legislation.

The Supreme Court GAVE ITSELF by judicial fiat the power to decide. Nobody gave them the power. That was the context of the decision. Take a class in Constitutional law. And let's juxtapose a couple of your statements:

Uh-oh! Right to life rhetoric alert! Do you really think having a right to privacy is repugnant? You don''t like legal abortion, and I understand that. But many Americans do.

Just because legislation is unpopular doesn''t make it illegitimate or wrong.

Obviously then, you aren't above reason. You could then see that any mandate legalizing abortion is unconstitutional via the 5th amendment No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. That is all it takes to prevent the taking of life.

That logic isn''t quite as solid as one of your Kielbasas, Abe! I''m glad it''s not true, since I could list a litany of unjust laws that were perfectly popular through the ages, from Jim Crow to anti-asian immigration laws, to laws against Jews and Communists, all the way up to the present anti-homosexual witch hunt in the military. Abe for Fuhrer! I mean, uh, president.

The majority of the laws you just stated were unconstitutional. And if you want to believe that homosexuals are good for our armed forces, fine. Obviously you've never spent any time serving them. I challenge you to find a military officer that will agree with you.

You obviously have a problem with Christianity, and YOU are fostering the anti-Christian additude that is quickly becoming a witch hunt in this country. The fact that I am a conservative Christian is enough for you to immediately label me a rascist and a Nazi.

That shows just how willing you are to have a logical discussion, Stalin boy.

Re: Oh, yeah, that speed limit stuff.

Our system of government would not have produced the emulated, prosperous society that we have had it been instituted with the limits we are now constratined by. It's obvious that your liberal indoctrination has been methodical and severe.

Our SYSTEM of government is good, however, those in charge have chucked the constituiton to the wind, so the net effect of our government is nowhere near the founders' original vision. The American Revolution occurred because taxes were raised a couple of pennies. Income taxes didn't exist. The effective tax rate, even for someone making a modest salary such as mine, is now approaching 40-50%. Any government with such confiscatory tax policies is surely illegitimate, especially when the majority of said tax is merely transferred to someone else (after the appropriate cut is taken out by beaurocrats.) The mere idea of entitlements, that someone else is entitled to MY money, is disgusting. If you want evidence that this country is run by stupid, immoral, jack-booted thugs, disregard your tax return for a couple of years. You will find out first hand. Ask Elian Gonzalez. He was kidnapped by government agents weilding automatic weapons that we are barred from owning so he could be sent to a communist country.

Re: Thoughts on Gabe''s Posting

Excellent post----

I agree, the legimacy of law depends upon the legitimancy of autority which enacted it. Our constitution, however, is singular among government charters for recognizing that there are rights that are God-given; the job of government is to secure those rights, not grant them. This distiction has fostered the rise of the most powerful and prosperous empire the world has ever known. The difficulty with this has become the temptation for those we entrust to represent us (and our rights) to act like kings. This leads them to "find" new meanings in the constitution, wholly apart from the original intent. The end result is that the constitution has become alterable, and what becomes of a government with the ability to change the meaning of the that places limits on itself? It becomes a government of men; serving the intrests of whosoever happens to be the current elect. Our current government can surely be considered oppressive, given the attitude with which those that govern regard its charter.