The Constitution in a Multicultural Society

[NYcarbineer]

a. The Constitution takes precedence over religious loyalties.
That is true for two of the three major religions.

@PoliticalChic
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."
or
"The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."
which is more important to you?

She's going to have to chew off her own foot to get out of that trap...ironically a trap of her own making.

 

[PoliticalChic]

3. So…we see the Liberal regularly attempting to marginalize American law and American history, to supplant same with foreign versions.

a. Liberals intend to replace American law. Need more proof? See Breyer’s dissent in Prinz v United States, touting European concepts over American. And in Knight v.Florida, he quotes India and even Zimbabwe.

just so we're clear here, you're saying that liberal's are attempting to supplant us law with international law, until you agree with it, and then it's okay.
can you show a case not dealing with the 8th amendment that has used foreign law and court cases as a deciding factor?

"just so we're clear here..."

We?

I was perfectly clear.....and I enjoyed rubbing your face in it.

You wrote:
"why do you believe that the european court of human rights would have an impact on the supreme courts rulings on a constitutional matter?"

I showed that that is exactly what has happened in Supreme Court decisions.

And now you're running from it with your tail between your legs....


Did I or did I not eviscerate your post?

'Fess up.

 

[NYcarbineer]

1. The fact is, the Constitution, the 'law of the land,' may not be consistent with what many wish for, a multicultural society.

2. The Constitution promises freedom of thought, and of speech, yet any criticism of minority cultures, or any aspect of same endorsed by the elites, is censored from the public debate as gauche, impolite, ignorant, .....even cause for dismissal from one's employment, e.g., BrendanEich.
.

The Constitution also offers protection for the employee who feels he has been unjustly dismissed...

...a worker's right that conservatives grudgingly concede, if they concede it at all, given their contempt for labor.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Uncensored and PoliticalChic, I would like to help you make your transition to White Natonalism a little easier. You have adopted many of their phrases and outlooks on life, so let me give you another term they use for people like me who are right wing conservatives who hate bigoted WN assholes like yourselves.

They call us "cultural marxists".

Go ahead. Use it. See how well it feels as it rolls off your tongue, little fuhrers! Doesn't it just perfectly encapsulate what has been boiling in your alleged brains?

Just as gays felt a lot of relief when they came out of the closet, you and PoliticalChic, too, can enjoy that same freeing sensation as you both come out as White Nationalists.

"A court decision issued last month about same-sex marriage received almost no news coverage in the United States, yet the decision could have significant implications when the U.S. Supreme Court decides whether the Constitution requires it.

The case, Hamalainen v. Finland, was decided by the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights, which ruled in an overwhelming majority opinion that no right to same-sex marriage exists under the European Convention on Human Rights.

The European Court of Human Rights is no ordinary court. It is the supreme human rights court in Europe and has jurisdiction over 47 European nations."
KISKA La RUE Europe stands strong for traditional definition of marriage - Washington Times

why do you believe that the european court of human rights would have an impact on the supreme courts rulings on a constitutional matter?

When will you recognize that I am never wrong?
And, commensurate with that query, when will you realize that my depth of knowledge is far greater than yours?


Here....let's prove that:

1. Justice Kennedy wrote the majority in Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that it is unconstitutional to impose capital punishment for crimes committed while under the age of 18.Kennedy referred favorably to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the International Convent on Civil and Political Rights. He also cited an European Union brief.He excused himself by that these were not “controlling,” but the Court “has referred to the laws of other countries and to international authorities as instructive for its interpretation of the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of ‘cruel and unusual punishments.’ “
Roper v. Simmons - 03-633 (2005) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center


2. . In the last few years, Kennedy, Breyer, Ginsburg, O’Connor and Stevens have all invoked foreign law in making decisions and filing dissents.
Fonte, “Sovereignty or Submission,” p. 110.


a. In 2003, Breyer, Ginsburg, and O’Connor met with French president Chirac to discuss French views on the death penalty.This, as the French were a prime mover on the Council of Europe with the announced intention of “abolishing capital punishment in the United States.”
Multilateralism comes to the courts > Public Interest > National Affairs

b. “ In Grutter, Justice Ruth BaderGinsburg (joined by Justice Stephen Breyer) cited both the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (which the United States has ratified) and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (which it has not) as evidence of an “international understanding of the office of affirmative action.”In Justice Ginsburg’s view, these international conventions provide the grounds for “temporary special measures aimed at accelerating de facto equality.” Ibid.

c. “In Lawrence, Justice Anthony Kennedy prominently recurred to a friend-of-the-Court brief on foreign law and court decisions filed by Mary Robinson, the former U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, and to a key decision of the European Court of Human Rights.” Ibid.



3. So…we see the Liberal regularly attempting to marginalize American law and American history, to supplant same with foreign versions.

a. Liberals intend to replace American law. Need more proof? See Breyer’s dissent in Prinz v United States, touting European concepts over American. And in Knight v.Florida, he quotes India and even Zimbabwe.

But, PC, that's no fair!

ogibillm and jilian weren't alluding to that case law; they were alluding to your allegedly imaginary case law. You're not supposed to produce actual facts.

And let's look at the politics of it:

Kennedy’s reliance on foreign sources has prompted a vigorous backlash, both on and off the Court. “When Kennedy, who’s hardly a liberal, started citing these international sources, that’s when the subject exploded in the broader political world,” says Dorsen, who in 2003 founded the International Journal of Constitutional Law to compare the use of foreign precedents by courts around the world. In dissenting opinions in the sodomy and juvenile-death-penalty cases, Justice Antonin Scalia, who was joined on both occasions by Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Clarence Thomas, condemned any reference to foreign authority by the Supreme Court. “The basic premise of the Court’s argument—that American law should comport to the laws of the rest of the world—ought to be rejected out of hand,” Scalia wrote in the death-penalty case. “What these foreign sources ‘affirm,’ ” he went on, “is the Justices’ own notion of how the world ought to be, and their diktat that it shall be so henceforth in America.” This spring, fifty-four conservatives in the House of Representatives sponsored a resolution criticizing the use of foreign sources by the Supreme Court, and, in August, Representative Steve King, a Republican from Iowa, completed an investigation of the Justices’ foreign trips, based on the disclosure forms that they are required to file. “Between 1998 and 2003, the Justices took a total of ninety-three foreign trips,” King told me. “And the implication is that there are at least a couple of Justices, chiefly Kennedy and Breyer, who are more enamored of the ‘enlightenment’ of the world than they are bound by our own Constitution.” Swing Shift​

 

[ogibillm]

3. So…we see the Liberal regularly attempting to marginalize American law and American history, to supplant same with foreign versions.

a. Liberals intend to replace American law. Need more proof? See Breyer’s dissent in Prinz v United States, touting European concepts over American. And in Knight v.Florida, he quotes India and even Zimbabwe.

just so we're clear here, you're saying that liberal's are attempting to supplant us law with international law, until you agree with it, and then it's okay.
can you show a case not dealing with the 8th amendment that has used foreign law and court cases as a deciding factor?

"just so we're clear here..."

We?

I was perfectly clear.....and I enjoyed rubbing your face in it.

You wrote:
"why do you believe that the european court of human rights would have an impact on the supreme courts rulings on a constitutional matter?"

I showed that that is exactly what has happened in Supreme Court decisions.

And now you're running from it with your tail between your legs....


Did I or did I not eviscerate your post?

'Fess up.

what you did was post a bunch of vague references to court cases. you also posted that it was a liberal plot to supplant us law.
however, i'm happy to admit that yes, they are cited on occasion. well done.

but again, i'll ask you if the supreme court decides to cite this decision when/if they make a ruling on gay marriage, will you still feel that is a liberal plan to supplant us law?

 

[JakeStarkey]

3. So…we see the Liberal regularly attempting to marginalize American law and American history, to supplant same with foreign versions.

a. Liberals intend to replace American law. Need more proof? See Breyer’s dissent in Prinz v United States, touting European concepts over American. And in Knight v.Florida, he quotes India and even Zimbabwe.

just so we're clear here, you're saying that liberal's are attempting to supplant us law with international law, until you agree with it, and then it's okay.
can you show a case not dealing with the 8th amendment that has used foreign law and court cases as a deciding factor?

Of course PC will, she is a right wing progressive, whose hypocrisy is legendary.


"just so we're clear here..."

We?

I was perfectly clear.....and I enjoyed rubbing your face in it.

You wrote:
"why do you believe that the european court of human rights would have an impact on the supreme courts rulings on a constitutional matter?"

I showed that that is exactly what has happened in Supreme Court decisions.

And now you're running from it with your tail between your legs....


Did I or did I not eviscerate your post?

'Fess up.

what you did was post a bunch of vague references to court cases. you also posted that it was a liberal plot to supplant us law.
however, i'm happy to admit that yes, they are cited on occasion. well done.

but again, i'll ask you if the supreme court decides to cite this decision when/if they make a ruling on gay marriage, will you still feel that is a liberal plan to supplant us law?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Uncensored thinks most of those guys are FBI agents/informants!

BWA-HA-HA-HA!

Yeah, because that picture was clearly taken in 2014.

You can tell, because DEMOCRAT Harry Truman is in the line of smiling Klansman..

Comrade Stupidfuck, you're not terribly bright.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The Constitution also offers protection for the employee who feels he has been unjustly dismissed...

...a worker's right that conservatives grudgingly concede, if they concede it at all, given their contempt for labor.

Can you point to that article or amendment, Comrade?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Comrade Uncensored of the Far Right Party is starting to melt.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

And what exactly is this all about

". . . cultural Marxism is the deconstruction of Western culture, of the influences of Christianity especially, and the expropriation of ideas and expression."

Consensus science, cultural Marxism, confirmation bias: distorted unrepresentative tools by the far right reactionaries and social cons to retrench cultural Anglo-European imperialism in the 21st century.

What those first three terms are reflects the 'complete studipity' and fear of folks who should know better but refuse to know better.

Tough to be them.

Watch it there, Jake, you're spouting the very same rhetoric of the Marxist deconstructionists of Critical Theory and, thereby, undermining g5000's depraved allegation that American conservatives are just imagining the assault on the classical liberalism of the Anglo-American tradition on which this nation was founded.

Oh, by the way, what you traitorous statists are seeking to impose on America against the impregnable construct of inalienable human rights is the Hegelian dialectic of Continental European imperialism alternately expressed as fascism or Marxism in the post-modern era.

Good luck with that given the fact that the impregnable reality of natural law is the very thing that reduces multiculturalism to the chaotic anarchy of balkanization.

Natural law and nature's God will have the last word.

The impending tyranny and the atrocities thereof will be tough on all of us, junior.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Spout all you want, M. D. The sane portion of scholastic and cultural and political America will not accept your redefinitions of any importance. It's like dismising the Mises school of economics, or for many western and Mormon historians, the folks at the BYU Institute, of having any relevance.

The ultimate failure of your comments is that you speak for our Lord and Savior. He has proved already He has no use for Pharisees like you who try to contaminate the spiritual and mortal worlds.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Spout all you want, M. D. The sane portion of scholastic and cultural and political America will not accept your redefinitions of any importance. It's like dismising the Mises school of economics, or for many western and Mormon historians, the folks at the BYU Institute, of having any relevance.

The ultimate failure of your comments is that you speak for our Lord and Savior. He has proved already He has no use for Pharisees like you who try to contaminate the spiritual and mortal worlds.

What in the world is this incoherent prattle? "The sane portion of scholastic and cultural and political America"? "[R]edefinitions"? "Mormon historians"? "BYU"? "Pharisees"?

Dude.

 

[JakeStarkey]

M. D. you are not an authority on these things. The spouting is done by you.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

PoliticalChic said: ↑


The Constitution promises freedom of thought, and of speech, yet any criticism of minority cultures, or any aspect of same endorsed by the elites, is censored from the public debate as gauche, impolite, ignorant, .....even cause for dismissal from one's employment, e.g., BrendanEich.


This is unsurprisingly, and comprehensively, ignorant.


Constitutional protections with regard to freedom of though and speech place restrictions only on unwarranted government excess and overreach, not the private sector. The First Amendment safeguards the relationship between the citizen and his government, where government may not place an undue burden on the right to free expression.


Such restrictions do not apply to the private sector, however, they do not apply to private individuals, private organizations, or private employers. Private entities are at liberty to censor speech they find objectionable for any reason they wish – USMB members being banned would be an example of a private sector entity censoring speech it finds objectionable where the First Amendment rights of the banned member have in no way been 'violated.'


Once again the OP succeeds in only exhibiting her ridiculous ignorance and stupidity in yet another inane and failed thread.

 

[PoliticalChic]

3. So…we see the Liberal regularly attempting to marginalize American law and American history, to supplant same with foreign versions.

a. Liberals intend to replace American law. Need more proof? See Breyer’s dissent in Prinz v United States, touting European concepts over American. And in Knight v.Florida, he quotes India and even Zimbabwe.

just so we're clear here, you're saying that liberal's are attempting to supplant us law with international law, until you agree with it, and then it's okay.
can you show a case not dealing with the 8th amendment that has used foreign law and court cases as a deciding factor?

"just so we're clear here..."

We?

I was perfectly clear.....and I enjoyed rubbing your face in it.

You wrote:
"why do you believe that the european court of human rights would have an impact on the supreme courts rulings on a constitutional matter?"

I showed that that is exactly what has happened in Supreme Court decisions.

And now you're running from it with your tail between your legs....


Did I or did I not eviscerate your post?

'Fess up.

what you did was post a bunch of vague references to court cases. you also posted that it was a liberal plot to supplant us law.
however, i'm happy to admit that yes, they are cited on occasion. well done.

but again, i'll ask you if the supreme court decides to cite this decision when/if they make a ruling on gay marriage, will you still feel that is a liberal plan to supplant us law?

There is nothing that identifies you more as a weasel than refusing to admit what, I am certain, is clear to every reader......you've been thrashed.

PoliticalChic said: ↑


The Constitution promises freedom of thought, and of speech, yet any criticism of minority cultures, or any aspect of same endorsed by the elites, is censored from the public debate as gauche, impolite, ignorant, .....even cause for dismissal from one's employment, e.g., BrendanEich.


This is unsurprisingly, and comprehensively, ignorant.


Constitutional protections with regard to freedom of though and speech place restrictions only on unwarranted government excess and overreach, not the private sector. The First Amendment safeguards the relationship between the citizen and his government, where government may not place an undue burden on the right to free expression.


Such restrictions do not apply to the private sector, however, they do not apply to private individuals, private organizations, or private employers. Private entities are at liberty to censor speech they find objectionable for any reason they wish – USMB members being banned would be an example of a private sector entity censoring speech it finds objectionable where the First Amendment rights of the banned member have in no way been 'violated.'


Once again the OP succeeds in only exhibiting her ridiculous ignorance and stupidity in yet another inane and failed thread.

"Constitutional protections with regard to freedom of though and speech place restrictions only on unwarranted government ....not the private sector. "


Gee.....that was remarkably easy to get you to admit that you didn't acknowledge " freedom of thought, and of speech" in the private sector.

So....you're pretty much a fascist?


Don't get your hopes up, C_Chamber_Pot......even the fascists wouldn't want an embarrassment such as you.

 

[JakeStarkey]

PC is weaseling again.

 

[Listening]

PC is weaseling again.

No,

But it is obvious that JakeTheFake found the key to the liquor cabinet.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Hey, Listening, I knew you, once you thought it out, would stop chickening out and come back.

Glad to see you here. It will be like old times, you crying all the time.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

PC is weaseling again.

No,

But it is obvious that JakeTheFake found the key to the liquor cabinet.

. . . and he, along with Clayton Jones, guzzled every last drop of its contents.

 

[JakeStarkey]

'cultural Marxism', what a hoot