Justice David Souter

[Planey]

When these two are lost our own safety net on this earth will have gone with it.

Wow.

I did not realise that the American constitution was our 'safety net'. I had better inform my friends in NZ, Britain, Canada, PNG, France, Germany, etc etc etc.

I am sure that this will come as a surprise to them as well.

Oh well, learn something new every day...

Graeme

[bonnie]

Originally Posted By: bonnie

When these two are lost our own safety net on this earth will have gone with it.

Wow.

I did not realise that the American constitution was our 'safety net'. I had better inform my friends in NZ, Britain, Canada, PNG, France, Germany, etc etc etc.

I am sure that this will come as a surprise to them as well.

Oh well, learn something new every day...

Graeme

Excuse me,It may come as a surprise to you,I was speaking of America as a american citizen to another I thought was an american citizen.

Our constitution is what has given us our religious freedoms. The ability to worship how we choose. Educate our children as we see fit. To come and go as we please. Someday we will no longer be afforded this right. When the rule of law by SS Court justices is on feelings and empathy,the law will not protect our rights.

It is obvious many that are SDA's do not share this opinion and end time events will be shaped by what??,I don't know.

I do believe these events will have to be global and can not be US only. We have seen on a very small scale just how quickly the political power can target private citizens that are not guilty of committing a crime.

I do not know what is taking place in other countries. Will america be first to implement the forces that will strip our freedoms?? Don't know where will be first,but I do know it is coming. When is up to God,but we have been given biblical indicators.

Following the rule of law and abiding by our constitution,end time events cannot be carried out

Don't know,but I do know it is coming.

[Dr. Shane]

The US will lead the world in the passing of the Sunday law so when we (the US) stops abiding by our own Constitution it will most certainly have an impact on the rest of the world. The US is the beacon of freedom for the world. We have the oldest democracy still in existence. Once freedom is lost here, the beacon will go out and the world will head into the darkness that will be the end times. Without a doubt, the US Constitution has a global impact.

[bonnie]

The US will lead the world in the passing of the Sunday law so when we (the US) stops abiding by our own Constitution it will most certainly have an impact on the rest of the world. The US is the beacon of freedom for the world. We have the oldest democracy still in existence. Once freedom is lost here, the beacon will go out and the world will head into the darkness that will be the end times. Without a doubt, the US Constitution has a global impact.

I am pretty well convinced many,many SDA's do not believe the constitution should be protected. Without it we have lost what eartly protection we have had.

That it is just an inconvenient tool or as Obama has said it is a document of negative restraints and did not go far enough in wealth redistribution.

Because Obama has become a cult like figure many will follow his every move and chant for more

[carolaa]

What does the Constitution have to do with wealth distribution?

[carolaa]

We have seen on a very small scale just how quickly the political power can target private citizens that are not guilty of committing a crime.

I'm curious what you mean by this. Because what comes immediately to my mind is the wiretapping, surveillance, and preemptive raids and arrests that took place under GW. But knowing a little of your political leanings and philosophy, I have a feeling you have something else in mind.

[Dr. Shane]

what comes immediately to my mind is the wiretapping, surveillance, and preemptive raids and arrests that took place under GW.

Not just GW. Students of history could list several examples of these under other Presidents. GW was following president.

[bonnie]

What does the Constitution have to do with wealth distribution?

You may want to ask Obama.

There are dozens of Obama quote's that can be found easily.

Here is one........ Obama has included redistribution of wealth quite easily into this. Obama seems to think we are to break free of the constraints of the constitution

n the 2001 interview, Obama said:

If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be OK

But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can't do to you. Says what the federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.

And that hasn't shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.

The video is available he

[bonnie]

Originally Posted By: bonnie

We have seen on a very small scale just how quickly the political power can target private citizens that are not guilty of committing a crime.

I'm curious what you mean by this. Because what comes immediately to my mind is the wiretapping, surveillance, and preemptive raids and arrests that took place under GW. But knowing a little of your political leanings and philosophy, I have a feeling you have something else in mind.

The wiretapping is something that Obama seems to want to keep last I heard.

You or I know nothing of the preemptive raids or the guilt or innocence of those arrested.

What you do know at this time is Obama and friends were very familiar AIG bonuses and approved. Then when the timing was right we have "Obama choked with anger" and pretending shock and dismay.

We have Barny Frank wanting names public,individuals that had not broken the law. This little frenzy party was well attended by Obama and they were going to do all sorts of wonderful things. It doesn't take a lot for nutcases to latch onto the verbal public flogging by Obama

[bonnie]

What does the Constitution have to do with wealth distribution?

What I find so odd with this is Obama does not deny or try to hide his ideology.

Only his supporters deny. It is either that isn't what he meant or someone is not repeating the context.

He has on more than one occasion said he wants to redistribute the wealth. He wants economic justice which means he takes from one that has more and gives it to another that doesn't have as much. The government is not entitled to take from one and distribute it to another.

He has more than once spoke of the negative rights and constraints of the constitution. Why do so many try to explain that isn't what he means.

He has made it perfectly clear what he is looking for in a SS Judge.

It is the rule of law,understanding and upholding that as the responsibility of the SSJ. Not empathy with a single mother or empathize with a minority. The law is the law and is to be followed regardless of your personal feelings or experinces or what it is you may not like about the constitution

It is not to show bias. My two sisters were killed by a drunk driver,no way would I be allowed on a jury to decide the fate of a drunk driver guilty of vehicular manslaughter. Nor should I be,even tho I can certainly empathize with the victims family.