Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?

Closed Thread Subscribe

Page 14264 of 20173

14264

Thread Tools

Search this Thread

11-13-2013, 05:33 AM

#142631

Justdoinmyjob

Looking for a laugh

Joined APC: Feb 2008

Posts: 4,099

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bucking Bar

Everyone else, don't forget your coats. It is could out there.

Is that worse than cold?

11-13-2013, 05:54 AM

#142632

CheapTrick

Gets Weekends Off

Joined APC: Jul 2012

Position: A350

Posts: 629

What's worse? Not seeing the picture or having seeing just a bit of a pic that goes 3' off the screen? I'm not sure. I need to ask four kindergartners.

11-13-2013, 08:23 AM

#142633

Scoop

Moderator

Joined APC: Dec 2007

Position: DAL 330

Posts: 6,991

Quote:

Originally Posted by tsquare

Yeah, be sure to blow it off, because there is no way that any of those 717s will ever fly those routes.

T,

The smiley face thingy means "This is a joke." Please enjoy, but do not take literally. Sometimes a joke is based on a wee bit O truth to add to the enjoyment.

Scoop

In this case my reply is also meant to be funny. OK, I will stick to my day job.

11-13-2013, 09:25 AM

#142634

buzzpat

Gets Weekends Off

Joined APC: Feb 2008

Position: Urban chicken rancher.

Posts: 6,070

Hey bros,

Is there any way to do quarterly CQ on an Ipad? Safari is incompatible.

11-13-2013, 09:35 AM

#142635

newKnow

Gets Weekends Off

Joined APC: Feb 2007

Position: 765-A

Posts: 6,844

Quote:

Originally Posted by gloopy

You mean *probably* would be struck down. And while I agree that particular example would most likely be, the question is "so what then?" if it wasn't? At the end of the day, since rights are no longer self evident and unalienable but have "progressively" become subservient to the utilitarian whims of the greater good, 5/9 can simply rewrite history in any fashion they wish and quite often do exactly that, and so here we are living the "living document" myth.

So yes, they may tend to take (most) first amendment cases seriously...for now...but they all but ignore the 4th, 5th, 9th and 10th while basically declaring the 16th the bedrock of the nation, imagine that. Which is of course the exact situation many founders predicted we would be in which is why there was such a fierce debate for even having a codified bill of rights in the first place. Many worried that by writing some down, since you can't possibly write down all rights, that later courts would look at what you wrote as an exhaustive list of rights and exclusion from that list would imply a non right. The compromise was the extremely powerful and limiting 9th and 10th amendments. So to get around that, endless sophistry has been applied for generations to bend reality and make anything and everything into either a general welfare or an interstate commerce clause issue, thus erasing the 9th and 10th amendments.

It used to be that if it wasn't in the Constitution, it wasn't a federal power. Now anything and everything is 100% federal because of general welfare or it somehow through the butterfly effect touches something across a state line eventually and therefore is the interstate commerce clause. That is clearly unconstitutional over reach. The problem isn't the court itself though. Its the people who elect the people who put the people onto the court in the first place. As long as we keep looking for a government that is big enough to give us everything we need, we will keep getting the government that is big enough to take everything we have.

Gloopy,

I think we have reached a "You can't have your cake and eat it, too," moment. This whole discussion began when someone asked if a state law and federal law contradicted, which would prevail. I correctly stated that because of the Supremacy Clause, the Constitution and federal law take precedence over any conflicting state law. In my opinion it's got to be that way. Having one source of "chief law" is a whole lot better than having 50 sources. There just aren't enough indians then and it gets way too confusing.

While it's understandable that you have a problem with the broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause, it seems as though you have a problem with the overreach of the federal government and maybe even with having the Supreme Court being the final decision-maker as to which federal laws prevail. You are a big believer in the 9th and 10th Amendment. "If the Constitution doesn't say it, the Feds can't enforce it."

But you, like most of us, also seem to believe that we all have these inalienable rights that have been placed in the Constitution in the form of the Bill of Rights. In fact, you complain that many of them are being ignored.

Well, what if a state is ignoring one of the fundamental rights contained in the Bill of Rights? What if Nebraska passed a law that banned all Christians from practicing Christianity? What if Illinois had a law that said no one could have firearms? Or, even better, what if Florida passed a law that their EPA could regulate free speech in the name of lower carbon dioxide emissions?

Guess what makes each of those laws unconstitutional? Overreach of the federal government. You see, there is nothing in the Constitution that says the states have to follow any of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights. What's been going on for the last 100 years or so, is that the Supreme Court has been binding the states to individual parts of the Bill of Rights in a process called incorporation. It was done a few years ago when Chicago was forced to drop a long standing gun ban. (Mc Donald vs. Chicago) Now, the Second Amendment applies to all the states, just like a lot of the other fundamental rights. Not because of the Constitution says anything about it, but because the Supreme Court says that's the way it is. Judicial over-reach at it's finest. (And that's ok.

)

So, I've got to ask you, which one is it? Do you want the inalienable rights to apply to all of the states and therefore all citizens. Or, do you want a strict interpretation of the Constitution? Do you agree with the Mc Donald decision?

Last edited by newKnow; 11-13-2013 at 10:15 AM.