response 51 of 101:

Nov 18 10:29 UTC 2003

looks like bru has caught tsty-spelling-itis.

response 53 of 101:

Nov 18 14:32 UTC 2003

Fishy...

response 55 of 101:

Nov 18 15:38 UTC 2003

I don't think race comes into it at all.  They're treating her like they
would any other far-right conservative.

response 57 of 101:

Nov 18 18:43 UTC 2003

Apparently, in klg's world, opposing whistle-blower protections and
suggesting companies have a right to lie to consumers are mainstream
positions.  Not to mention this:

"Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community
retreats, civil society disintegrates, and our ability to control our
own destiny atrophies. ...The result is a debased, debauched culture
which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible."

Oh, and she's also taken the "mainstream position" that state
governments are not bound by anything in the Bill of Rights.

response 59 of 101:

Nov 19 01:53 UTC 2003

I am holding tsty's spelling ability hostage.  If he doesn't pay
for my guitar, he'll never see it again.

response 61 of 101:

Nov 19 06:44 UTC 2003

Rather than "encroahing" into our society and culture, government is the
cement that holds it together. The founding document is the Constitution,
and if there has ever been a more powerful and uniting governmental document,
I would like to know about it. 

response 63 of 101:

Nov 19 18:06 UTC 2003

My, my.  Love it or leave it???  Where have we heard that one before?

Mr. rcurl,
Do you really believe that the Constitution, as currently applied, is 
the same document (in terms of meaning) as that adopted by the 
founders?  Or has it been vastly distorted by "umbras and penumbras" 
that have since been "discovered"?

response 65 of 101:

Nov 19 18:52 UTC 2003

(Was it not Roe v. Wade that was decided upon "rights" that were 
referred to as umbras and penumbras emanating from the rights actually 
defined within the Constitution?  Ah, yes.  Here is a reference:

"the made-up "right to privacy" that Justice Blackmun and Douglas came 
up with in 1973 after examining the shadier portions ('umbras and 
penumbras') of the ... www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/636772/posts - 
60k - Supplemental Result - Cached - Similar pages"

response 67 of 101:

Nov 19 18:55 UTC 2003

Incidentally, do you agree with Brown's position that the states should
not have to honor the protections in the Bill of Rights?

response 69 of 101:

Nov 19 21:57 UTC 2003

  re #68:  
  > I think Roe vs Wade was properly decided, on the basis of individual
  > rights guaranteed in the Constitution.

  Which ones?

response 71 of 101:

Nov 20 02:11 UTC 2003

Amendments 4, 9 and 10.

response 73 of 101:

Nov 20 06:07 UTC 2003

 >>> I think Roe vs Wade was properly decided, on the basis of individual
 >>> rights guaranteed in the Constitution.
 >> 
 >>  Which ones?
 >
 > Amendments 4, 9 and 10.

 For the record, amendments IV, IX, and X are as follows:

   Amendment IV

   The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
   houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and
   seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue,
   but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation,
   and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
   persons or things to be seized.

   Amendment IX

   The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not
   be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

   Amendment X

   The powers not delegated to the United States by the
   Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved
   to the states respectively, or to the people.

 Astute observers will note that none of these explicitly mention any
 right to an abortion, or even spell out in clear terms a right to privacy.

 Amendment IX is a disclaimer that the list of enumerated rights is 
 not exhaustive but it doesn't introduce any additional rights by name,
 nor does it imply that the people possess all rights that do not expressly
 conflict with the government's powers as enumerated elsewhere in the main
 text of the Constitution, or Rane would have a hard time explaining why
 the Constitution protects the right to an abortion but not the right to
 use marijuana or to do a million other things that laws have prohibited
 subsequent to the ratification of Amendment IX.

 And Amendment X is an odd one for Rane to appeal to, since it's an
 almost absolute certainty that he rejects the power of the states
 to prohibit abortion individually.

 Amendment IV, as anyone who can read can clearly see, is chiefly concerned
 with issues of search and seizure, at least as far as the literal text is
 concerned.  However in modern interpretation, jurists have read a "right
 to privacy" and other implied rights into Amendment IV.  Unfortunately for
 Rane's article, this assumption of rights implied but not explicitly 
 spelled out is what klg is talking about when he uses the term "penumbra."
 To the extent that there is a right to privacy in the constitution and that
 it supports Roe v. Wade, the penumbra is what we're talking about.  

 But since Rane insists that the rights are out there in plain view and
 not in the penumbra, perhaps he can elaborate on where exactly we are to
 find them in the text of the amendments above.

response 75 of 101:

Nov 20 06:25 UTC 2003

Certainly, I am not a "constitutional scholar", so I will defer to Justice
Blackmun to speak for me: http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Roe/

You believe, I presume, that Jutice Blackmun was also speaking out of
his ass - which would clearly make him your spokesperson.