Sarah Palin's Alaska

[IrishinSyria]

Seems to me that if she was actually talking about those exact words being in the constitution, it's a strange and meaningless, but technically correct, point to make. However, if she was talking about the principle those words represent, then she's on shakier, yet more interesting, ground.

200 years of jurisprudence, the explicit wording of the first amendment, and the complete absence of any reference to the role of God and/or the Church in governance in our constitution all say she's wrong on the general principle.

 

[CanadianIrish]

Only if he has his teleprompter. Doesn't leave home without it!!!

He uses too many big words to write his speeches on his hand like Palin.

 

[dshans]

I (sic) be more concerned about Al Franken. He is going to be in there acting like a fool for anohter (sic) 4 years before you can get him out!

Not worried at all. He's intelligent, dedicated, and aware. I voted for him and will again should he run again (barring any major idiocy) and I'm a living resident of Minnesota.

 

[IrishInFl]

Not worried at all. He's intelligent, dedicated, and aware. I voted for him and will again should he run again (barring any major idiocy) and I'm a living resident of Minnesota.

I voted for him in the caucus, but moved to Florida before the election.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

Seems to me that if she was actually talking about those exact words being in the constitution, it's a strange and meaningless, but technically correct, point to make. However, if she was talking about the principle those words represent, then she's on shakier, yet more interesting, ground.

I disagree, respectfully of course. I think it's quite meaningful to interpret the Establishment Clause in a manner contrary to the latest Supreme Court cases. Many highly-regarded scholars take the same view.

200 years of jurisprudence, the explicit wording of the first amendment, and the complete absence of any reference to the role of God and/or the Church in governance in our constitution all say she's wrong on the general principle.

(1) It's not 200, it's more like 50. (2) The First Amendment doesn't explicitly say "Separation" -- that's the whole point. (3) The fact that something isn't mentioned in the Constitution doesn't mean it's banned. There are a lot of things left unmentioned that are certainly not prohibited. If anything, this point supports an argument that each state may enact their own religion under the 10th Amendment.

I personally am a pretty big fan of secular government, in principle. What I am not a fan of, as I think I've demonstrated, is people (judges?) manipulating the Constitution to say more than it says. If people want it to say something, they should pass an amendment. I have no problem with a Separation of Church and State amendment.

Did I mention that this whole confusion is largely a result of journalists advancing an agenda?

 

[hrc08]

I don't think "rationalize" means what you think it means. O'Donnell specifically said:

"The First Amendment does? ... So you're telling me that the separation of church and state, the phrase 'separation of church and state,' is in the First Amendment?"

O'Donnell questions separation of church, state - Yahoo! News

And she's precisely right -- that phrase is not in the Constitution. Neither is that concept.

Not that anyone can blame you for repeating what the mainstream media reports. "Separation of Church and State" is one of the main pilars of that religion known as Leftism.

Same thing that we Lefties have been saying about "right to bear" arms. It not written wrod for word in the Constitution.

See how much that's gotten us? Guns sales at an all-time high.

PS: Before anybody goes off on a rant, trust me, it's not there. "right to raise a standing militia" of something.

 

[hrc08]

He uses too many big words to write his speeches on his hand like Palin.

LOL, I remember that. Very scary if you think about: She could have been VPOTUS.

 

[IrishinSyria]

'Grumpy the Clown' elected to Brazil's Congress, but can he read? | FP Passport

Well, at least we don't have this.

 

[Irish Rogue]

Hey mods what does this thread have anything to do with ND football? You shut down the olberman thread so quick, that had more relevence then this thread.

 

[IrishAlum1997]

It's the Lep Lounge, so its fair game. That said, liberals get the latitude to espouse their drivel, while conservatives are quick to be typecast as "holding on to our guns and religion" or tea party racists. Olbermann thread closed, Palin bash on.

Disclaimer: Palin would not get 40% of the popular vote in a general election.

 

[IrishinSyria]

It's the Lep Lounge, so its fair game. That said, liberals get the latitude to espouse their drivel, while conservatives are quick to be typecast as "holding on to our guns and religion" or tea party racists. Olbermann thread closed, Palin bash on.

Disclaimer: Palin would not get 40% of the popular vote in a general election.

The Olbermann thread was in the main football board. Just sayin.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

LOUD NOISES!

I love lamp.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

P.S. I have strong opinions...I just don't want to blog about them.

 

[NankerPhelge]

Same thing that we Lefties have been saying about "right to bear" arms. It not written wrod for word in the Constitution.

See how much that's gotten us? Guns sales at an all-time high.

PS: Before anybody goes off on a rant, trust me, it's not there. "right to raise a standing militia" of something.

Actually reading the Second Amendment, and then the U.S. Supreme Court cases District of Columbia v Heller[U(2008) (Holding a textual reading of the Second Amendment requires that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual one, separate from the right of the states to form militias) and McDonald v. Chicago(2010) (Holding that Second Amendment individual right is incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendment as against state and municipal governments) might change your mind. But, probably not. (If you are interested, you can find these at the Supreme Court's website).

As to this "wall of separation" between church and state that I keep seeing here, would that prohibit Notre Dame (a "Catholic" university") from receiving grant money from the federal government? The most recent example being the $50 million my dear alma mater received from the feds almost immediately after our distinguished (and eminently experienced, I might add) current President gave his commencement speech and received his honorary ND law degree?

And, as long as I'm writing, does any one here have a clue why Father Jenkins might have sent out his compassionate letter concerning Declan Sullivan's death (other than compassion, which I am sure was sincere, and no, that is not meant sarcastically) when the statement might be seen by some to be legally dangerous in terms of ND's possible legal and monetary exposure? Don't know for sure, but here might be a clue. Anybody ever heard of worker's compensation laws? But I digress from the main topic, Sarah Palin, I guess. Not a big fan of hers either, but I find it ironic when some, seemingly, at least, marginally educated people can come up with no better criticism than ad hominem attacks like calling her a "moron." Might want to make the criticisms a little more substantive, or else look in a mirror.

 

[IrishinSyria]

Not a big fan of hers either, but I find it ironic when some, seemingly, at least, marginally educated people can come up with no better criticism than ad hominem attacks like calling her a "moron." Might want to make the criticisms a little more substantive, or else look in a mirror.

The substantive criticism, that gets to the root of this thread, is that her show is annoying. Politically, she is perhaps the perfect example of a new trend in politics that I find troublesome: the transformation of the politician into entertainer. Now, anybody who has read All The King's Men will realize that this is not necessarily a new development, but there's a difference in-between giving entertaining speeches and actually having your own platform on a "news" network. I would be equally disturbed if this were happening on the left, but the fact is Fox news has 4 of the top 5 Republican candidates for president in 2012 on their payroll right now. That's unprecedented, and it's scary.

As for DC vs Heller and McDonald vs Chicago, perhaps people will be convinced by them. On the other hand, perhaps people will point out that they were both highly contested 5-4 decisions that overturned old conventions. As Justice Stevens wrote in his dissent:

the court's judgment was "a strained and unpersuasive reading" which overturned longstanding precedent, and that the court had "bestowed a dramatic upheaval in the law".

Remember, people always decry Judicial activism until they agree with it.

 

[NankerPhelge]

The substantive criticism, that gets to the root of this thread, is that her show is annoying. Politically, she is perhaps the perfect example of a new trend in politics that I find troublesome: the transformation of the politician into entertainer. Now, anybody who has read All The King's Men will realize that this is not necessarily a new development, but there's a difference in-between giving entertaining speeches and actually having your own platform on a "news" network. I would be equally disturbed if this were happening on the left, but the fact is Fox news has 4 of the top 5 Republican candidates for president in 2012 on their payroll right now. That's unprecedented, and it's scary.

Won't get much disagreement from me about this. This is exactly the substantive criticism I was talking about, not just mindless name-calling.

As for DC vs Heller and McDonald vs Chicago, perhaps people will be convinced by them. On the other hand, perhaps people will point out that they were both highly contested 5-4 decisions that overturned old conventions. As Justice Stevens wrote in his dissent:

Remember, people always decry Judicial activism until they agree with it.

Well, we could talk about this for a long time. I personally think that the debate over the proper mode of constitutational interpretation necessary to maintain a free, constitutional republic is, by far, the single most important issue in jurisprudence today. Unfortunately, it is given very short-shrift, if any attention, in most law schools today. But, I don't think that it is insignificant by any stretch of the imagination that two of our current Supreme Court justices (Stevens, whom you mention, and Scalia) have both written books on precisely this subject fairly recently.

As to the judicial activism comment, that discussion would take more space than we can probably be expected to be allowed here. I have always taken the viewpoint that judicial activism occurs when judges attempt to separate their decisions from a reasonable reading of the text (which is, after all, the democratically enacted law to which they take an oath to be faithful), and not when judges are as faithful as possible to the text, whether or not that leads them to a decision that might be politically popular or aligns with their own personal preferences.

I do very much appreciate the conversation.

 

[NankerPhelge]

Sorry, IrishinSyria, but my reply to your first comment is embedded in your quote, because I truly am a moron and can't figure out how to work this damned quoting feature on this thing.

 

[I'mgullible]

NankerPhelge, I have read one or two of your posts, and you are so impressive. But how do you know what goes on in most law schools today? No disprespect intended.

I thought McCain lost the election the second he named Palin as his running mate.

Are you Alan Page?

 

[NankerPhelge]

NankerPhelge, I have read one or two of your posts, and you are so impressive. But how do you know what goes on in most law schools today? No disprespect intended.

I thought McCain lost the election the second he named Palin as his running mate.

Are you Alan Page?

Well, thanks for the kind words. I have never, ever, considered myself "impressive," and am not trying to impress. Just really like good debate, conversation, whatever.

I am in the profession and one of my special interests is, and has always been, constitutional law and interpretation. My daughter just graduated from law school, so I know what her experience was like in this area. Additionally, I do a lot of reading concerning this subject, and know quite a few professors at various law schools with whom I keep in contact. No, I do not consider myself an expert, but I do try to be as informed as possible in the areas of my interest.

Man, I wish I was Alan Page. You can bet he's got a ton more money than I do.

 

[I'mgullible]

Did McCain lose his presidency attempt when he named Palin as his running mate?

 

[NankerPhelge]

I don't think that helped him, not because of her views, but because of her vacuous personna. But, I think that McCain lost just by being McCain, and also because Bush was just so damned unpopular by the end of his presidency that it would have really taken someone extremely dynamic to keep the Republicans in the White House.

 

[IrishinSyria]

I do very much appreciate the conversation.

As do I. There's nothing wrong with people having differences of opinion, the trouble begins when people become so attached to their views that they can't have a reasonable discussion. I'm afraid that the internet and 24 hour cable news only contribute to the decline of political discourse in this country, as you can filter out all opinions you don't want to hear. Just like people routinely pick the Irish to go 10-2 or better on this site, so do people become biased politically when they follow one side exclusively.

 

[NankerPhelge]

As do I. There's nothing wrong with people having differences of opinion, the trouble begins when people become so attached to their views that they can't have a reasonable discussion. I'm afraid that the internet and 24 hour cable news only contribute to the decline of political discourse in this country, as you can filter out all opinions you don't want to hear. Just like people routinely pick the Irish to go 10-2 or better on this site, so do people become biased politically when they follow one side exclusively.

Again, you will not get much disagreement from me about this. I would just say that, even though some information comes from sources that are not quite "academic," or from sources that someone doesn't like personally, that doesn't make that information invalid. For example, I read a lot of snide remarks about Glenn Beck somewhere on this site. Personally, I really don't care for Beck's personality. But a fair attack would be to dispute the statements he makes with something substantive to counter, not to make fun of him because he cries once in awhile. I again, personally think that it is shameful, and incidentally an example of the media-driven politics to which you raise an objection, that Al Franken could actually be elected to the Senate. But my thoughts have nothing to do with the fact that I think that he is abhorent as a person, but with the fact that I have read his books and simply do not agree with him on the substantive issues. I am not a big Sarah Palin fan, although I do agree with her on most of the substantive issues, which may seem like a contradiction, but it is not. I don't think that most of the views she espouses or statements she makes about them are a result of her own thinking them through, but are simply her repeating "talking points" like a parrot that she really hasn't analyzed and really does not know that much about. Which, unfortunately, seems to be to be true of about 95% of our elected officials on either side of the aisle today. Very few of them seem to be deep-thinking statesmen, but instead are mainly mouth-pieces for the dominant forces in their respective parties.

Now, I think that whether ND wins or loses today, or on any day, matters little in the long-run scheme of things. But based only on my emotions and my lifelong rooting for the Irish, and unbacked by any facts, I will say that I think they win handily over Utah today. Take it to the bank. And if I am wrong, so what? No significant effect on the world that I can see.

 

[Irish Rogue]

Again what does this have to do with ND Football ?

 

[ACamp1900]

The United States of America... leaderless since 2008 thanks to the complete inept retard and chief currently in the white house who can't find his own a$$ with both of his dumb a$$ wife's hands...

his only accomplishment is tearing the country completely apart politically and inventing a new excuse for us all... when you can't find a solution to anything, say you inherited the problem.

and he's racist too.

Al Franken is ten times the nut job Palin is and his camp obviously stole the election, if he had an R next to his name he'd be set out on a rail.

Everyone who doesn't like Palin, Bachman and O'Donnell calls them stupid then gives no real reason for it... she's just stupid... the term for that is sexist.

See guys, anyone can throw stupid flames at public figures... maybe respecting and realizing the fact that the "dumb a$$ moronic bitch Palin" is smarter, more successful, and yes, better looking than all the morons across the net and on this board making hate threads about her would be a nice first step to simply letting it go(or maybe that's the real problem to begin with)... hell my side has to deal with someone equally as unqualified and inexperienced, who tends to play the blame game just as much actually sitting in the white houre... yet some clowns can't stand she has a show promoting Alaska??... and she's the moron... right.

whatever

have a nice day.

 

[IrishinSyria]

Again what does this have to do with ND Football ?

Look at the forum description.

The Leprechaun Lounge (16 Viewing)
Grab a green beer and pull up your chair, It's happy hour at the Leprechaun Lounge. Got something on your mind? Share it. Everythings fair game here.

 

[Irish Rogue]

Again what does this have to do with ND Football ?

I'll keep saying this. What does this have to do with ND football ?

 

[IrishJayhawk]

I'll keep saying this. What does this have to do with ND football ?

It doesn't have to have anything to do with football. That's the point of the lounge.

 

[IrishAlum1997]

The United States of America... leaderless since 2008 thanks to the complete inept retard and chief currently in the white house who can't find his own a$$ with both of his dumb a$$ wife's hands...

his only accomplishment is tearing the country completely apart politically and inventing a new excuse for us all... when you can't find a solution to anything, say you inherited the problem.

and he's racist too.

Al Franken is ten times the nut job Palin is and his camp obviously stole the election, if he had an R next to his name he'd be set out on a rail.

Everyone who doesn't like Palin, Bachman and O'Donnell calls them stupid then gives no real reason for it... she's just stupid... the term for that is sexist.

See guys, anyone can throw stupid flames at public figures... maybe respecting and realizing the fact that the "dumb a$$ moronic bitch Palin" is smarter, more successful, and yes, better looking than all the morons across the net and on this board making hate threads about her would be a nice first step to simply letting it go(or maybe that's the real problem to begin with)... hell my side has to deal with someone equally as unqualified and inexperienced, who tends to play the blame game just as much actually sitting in the white houre... yet some clowns can't stand she has a show promoting Alaska??... and she's the moron... right.

whatever

have a nice day.

+1,000,000

Gotta go watch the View. President's on. Pfft.

 

[johnnykillz]

I'll keep saying this. What does this have to do with ND football ?

I'll answer you quite simply: Politics has everything to do with ND football and the future of our nation. If we completely convert to socialism, I'm sure we'll become a soccer nation...

BTW, Go Irish!!!

Palin's sexy. Way sexy. So is Bristol.