Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
citadel: i'm entirely aware of these writings. and to don my historian hat for a moment, there's no way methodologically that the federalist papers or the fragmentary minutes of the constitutional convention or the correspondence of the participants even can be used in the way that strict constructionists would do.
|
It makes a lot of sense when you consider what the authors were willing to shoot soldiers over in their backyards before they sat down to write the documents.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
The core question, I believe, is whether rights are absolute given that there are limitations in exercising them. Sure, you can say you have the right of free speech and can say anything you goddamn well want, but the fact remains that there are laws in place that prevent you from communicating certain information. Tell me, if Manning has such an inalienable right to free speech, why isn't he being released without charges?
|
dksuddeth is talking about rights, and you're talking about legal permission. The question is if the two are in line?
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
what the strict constructionists are after is a revolution in the common law tradition itself that they are dishonest about, that they hide beneath some absurd return to sources. which they aren't real smart about interpreting.
|
Well this strict constructionist is about getting out of massive debt and maintaining individual freedoms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
Your framing of this topic strikes me as fundamentally dishonest.
This isn't a question of the development of medical science, it's about rejecting reality at the expense of a child's safety. You're welcome to believe whatever you want as a part of your religious freedom, but endangering the life of someone you're responsible for crosses the line.
Source
The treatment for blood infection, pneumonia, and a cyst on the neck is not prayer and oils, as you well know. It's antibiotics and surgery. We know these treatments work. It's not blood-letting, but rather tested and confirmed science. |
In that particular case, I agree with you about the remedy. But what is science other than guesswork? Tested and confirmed? It has taken a series of tragedies to get where we are today with medical knowledge, and I guarantee you that things we are doing right now will be laughed at in a hundred years or so. As you said, the parents are responsible for the well being of their child, not the government. Whatever form of voodoo they wish to practice to avoid whichever afterlife they believe in is their business.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
Would you allow your own child to die because all you could muster to save his or her life was a prayer? Are you that kind of person?
|
Would you allow your child to die because some doctor recommended a treatment you believed was wrong or riddled with failure? What makes Colleen Hauser's or Suzanne Somers' beliefs about cancer treatment so deadly and dangerous? If the government isn't allowed to adjudicate death, they shouldn't be allowed to adjudicate life either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
I don't want to live in a country where children are forced to suffer and die because of their parent's religious beliefs.
|
I don't want to live in a country where people are not allowed to have an honest say in the treatment for their dying child.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
The problem with interpretations of the Constitution is that it's not always that well written. I've talked about this with some of the Amendments. I haven't read the whole Constitution, but it's my understanding that a number of problems arise with some of the diction and sentence structures. I suppose this is why it's so compelling to want to keep returning to the founders' intentions.
|
That's the issue with some areas, and why other texts from the time should be looked at if there's a question about the plain meaning of the words and phrases used.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
and in case you haven't noticed, we're a long way from the constitution as it was written.
|
That's what it comes down to. We have a hugely bloated government and people who are taxed, licensed, charged fees and subject to millions of laws and regulations. Some how I don't think that was part of the grand vision.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
I don't know. Not without going into specific examples. But, no, laws and their enforcement shouldn't in principle go beyond the powers in the Constitution.
|
Like the way the commerce clause has been stretched and twisted?