Sacramento Teen Question by Secret Service

[CrAz3D]

National security cause we're without a leader for a short amount of time & then the whole country is in some state of vulnerability.

Doesn't the power instantly pass to the Vice President?  Or am I mistaken?

He's gotta be sworn in & all that junk.  So like 30 minutes later there is a new president.

I think the definition of existing constitutional rights is pretty objective, isn't it?

Not at all, I don't think. 

Liberties granted in the Constitution are ALWAYS being argued.  Privacy?  If you're a very strict Constitutionalist, there is no Bill of Rights protected privacy.
So it just depends who is sitting on the bench regarding what is and is not a constitutional/bill of rights protection

[Sidoh]

It's written on a damn infallible (in the context it can't be changed without a bunch of procedures) document.  What is there to argue about?

[CrAz3D]

It's written on a damn infallible (in the context it can't be changed without a bunch of procedures) document.  What is there to argue about?

interrpretations of the words.

Curel & unusual?....very vague
The whole right to privacy is basically fabricated by the supreme court

all of the wording is quite vague, the meanings change with the times

[Hitmen]

Kill George Bush.

* Hitmen ducks

[Sidoh]

interrpretations of the words.

Curel & unusual?....very vague
The whole right to privacy is basically fabricated by the supreme court

all of the wording is quite vague, the meanings change with the times

Not really.

[CrAz3D]

interrpretations of the words.

Curel & unusual?....very vague
The whole right to privacy is basically fabricated by the supreme court

all of the wording is quite vague, the meanings change with the times

Not really.

what do you mean not really?

or that Congress can pass any law "necessary & proper" to carry out their roles
cruel & unusual isnt vague?...how is that not vague language?

[Sidoh]

what do you mean not really?

or that Congress can pass any law "necessary & proper" to carry out their roles
cruel & unusual isnt vague?...how is that not vague language?

I'm aware of the ambiguity.

I still think that the rights are pretty clearly defined.  Arguing over what is a cruel and unusual punishment (which seems pretty intuitive to me) is not the same as arguing what should be a consitutional right.

[iago]

What about, "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed," which is generally said as "right to bear arms".  That's another interpretation that could be argued.


Yes, the most basic rights are totally objective, but how those right are interpreted or applied is often subjective and open to interpretation.

[dark_drake]

What about, "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed," which is generally said as "right to bear arms".  That's another interpretation that could be argued.


Yes, the most basic rights are totally objective, but how those right are interpreted or applied is often subjective and open to interpretation.

Nonsense, all rights are clear cut.  My idea of these clearly defined rights is exactly the same as everybody else's.  :-\

[Eric]

what do you mean not really?

or that Congress can pass any law "necessary & proper" to carry out their roles
cruel & unusual isnt vague?...how is that not vague language?

I'm aware of the ambiguity.

I still think that the rights are pretty clearly defined.  Arguing over what is a cruel and unusual punishment (which seems pretty intuitive to me) is not the same as arguing what should be a consitutional right.

You do realize that what you may personally feel to be "cruel and unusual punishment" in our present-day environment may have been substantially different to those in the seventeenth century, correct?  What you may perceive as a general consensus must cross ethnic, economic, and religious boundaries not only of the present, but of the past as well.  This concept is generally taught to any first-year philosophy student...

[Sidoh]

You do realize that what you may personally feel to be "cruel and unusual punishment" in our present-day environment may have been substantially different to those in the seventeenth century, correct?  What you may perceive as a general consensus must cross ethnic, economic, and religious boundaries not only of the present, but of the past as well.  This concept is generally taught to any first-year philosophy student...

I am (and was) aware. :P

[CrAz3D]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/10/13/state/n173002D95.DTL

"They yelled at me a lot," she said. "They were unnecessarily mean."

::) STFU stupid girl.

"She obviously is not a threat to society, if you look at her age, her family background, the cartoonish nature of the MySpace page," said her father, Jim Moose, an environmental law attorney.

...which is why your daughter isn't currently in some federal prison, duh.  They investigated it to make sure it wasn't some person pretending to be a 14 year old girl.

"I wasn't dangerous. I mean, look at what's (stenciled) on my backpack — it's a heart. I'm a very peace-loving person," said Wilson

Peace...kill the president, same difference I spose.

[iago]

Newby just recently said "kill bush" on this forum.  Do you think he's now a threat to national security?  Hitmen has said the same thing in the past. 

You should probably stop associating with this board altogether, or you might be considered an accessory to whatever it is that girl was accused of.  Treason?

[dark_drake]

Newby just recently said "kill bush" on this forum.  Do you think he's now a threat to national security?  Hitmen has said the same thing in the past. 

You should probably stop associating with this board altogether, or you might be considered an accessory to whatever it is that girl was accused of.  Treason?

Mehbe they'll anally probe Newby just to be on the safe side.  :o

[CrAz3D]

Newby just recently said "kill bush" on this forum.  Do you think he's now a threat to national security?  Hitmen has said the same thing in the past. 

You should probably stop associating with this board altogether, or you might be considered an accessory to whatever it is that girl was accused of.  Treason?

She wasnt accused of anything, other than making what appeared to be (after investigation) an uncredible threat.
I'd have to help Newby/Hitmen to kill Bush before I could be an accessory.  If anything you'd be hit before any of us (except maybe Newby & Hitmen)since you host the forums & provide & allow threats(credible or not) against the president of the U.S.

Newby just recently said "kill bush" on this forum.  Do you think he's now a threat to national security?  Hitmen has said the same thing in the past. 

You should probably stop associating with this board altogether, or you might be considered an accessory to whatever it is that girl was accused of.  Treason?

Mehbe they'll anally probe Newby just to be on the safe side.  :o

Hope he doesnt enjoy it too much