Comments on: AMERICA’S MULLAHS http://mensnewsdaily.com/2006/07/10/americas-mullahs/ Men's Rights Activism, MRA Politics, Analysis, Commentary and Global News Sun, 22 Nov 2009 15:02:46 -1000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Edward_L_Daley http://mensnewsdaily.com/2006/07/10/americas-mullahs/comment-page-1/#comment-14658 Edward_L_Daley Tue, 11 Jul 2006 08:36:09 +0000 http://mensnewsdaily.com/2006/07/10/americas-mullahs/#comment-14658 Roger Knight said, "Why is it that originalists always bring up the abortion issue and NEVER bring up specific cases by which specifically enumerated rights set forth in the Constitution are taken away? The disadvantage of this method of argument is that people then believe that abortion is your only issue — because it is the only one you talk about." Nonsense. Abortion is not the only issue that originalists address, it is simply one of the most prescient, and it affords individuals like yourself a shining example upon which other examples may then be stacked. Roger Knight said,

“Why is it that originalists always bring up the abortion issue and NEVER bring up specific cases by which specifically enumerated rights set forth in the Constitution are taken away?
The disadvantage of this method of argument is that people then believe that abortion is your only issue — because it is the only one you talk about.”

Nonsense. Abortion is not the only issue that originalists address, it is simply one of the most prescient, and it affords individuals like yourself a shining example upon which other examples may then be stacked.

]]> By: Edward_L_Daley http://mensnewsdaily.com/2006/07/10/americas-mullahs/comment-page-1/#comment-14656 Edward_L_Daley Tue, 11 Jul 2006 08:21:29 +0000 http://mensnewsdaily.com/2006/07/10/americas-mullahs/#comment-14656 Chas said, "we need the right to go to war to protect that belief, rather than being forced by them to live my whole life watching it slip away" We already have that right, as expressed in The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, also known as the Declaration of Independence. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." Chas said,

“we need the right to go to war to protect that belief, rather than being forced by them to live my whole life watching it slip away”

We already have that right, as expressed in The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, also known as the Declaration of Independence.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

]]> By: Roger Knight http://mensnewsdaily.com/2006/07/10/americas-mullahs/comment-page-1/#comment-14649 Roger Knight Tue, 11 Jul 2006 04:22:28 +0000 http://mensnewsdaily.com/2006/07/10/americas-mullahs/#comment-14649 Why is it that originalists always bring up the abortion issue and NEVER bring up specific cases by which specifically enumerated rights set forth in the Constitution are taken away? The disadvantage of this method of argument is that people then believe that abortion is your only issue -- because it is the only one you talk about. The thundering silence on your part is with all of the specifically enumerated rights that are taken away in family law: Denial of equal protection of the laws to the men, on a few occasions to the women, the imposition of property division, alimony, and child support without requiring proof of WRONGDOING, and therefore deprivation of liberty and propoert without due process of law; and of course, slavery and involuntary servitude in the enforcement of alimony and child support obligations. The Ninth Circus decision in U.S. v. Ballek, (9th Cir. 1999) 170 F.3d. 871 apecifically found that the duty of a parent to support a child and the government's interest in the enforcement of that duty, creates an exception to the 13th Amendment's prohibition of slavery and involuntary servitude except as punishment for a CRIME. Being a parent is not a CRIME. This decision not only stripped parents without custody of their children of the protection against slavery and involuntary servitude, it stripped ALL parents of the protection of the 13th Amendment. The offensive "rational basis" doctrine has been in force since the Slaughterhouse Cases in the 1870's and was used to uphold the internment of United States Citizens of Japanese Ancestry during World War II. Yet all we hear from you originalists is "abortion, abortion, abortion". You make the argument for the original interpretation of the Constitution, applying the strict constructionist "what it says is and what it does not say is not" approach to interpretation of both constitutional and statutory provisions so much better by citing the upholding of the wartime internments and the Child Support Crusade as examples of how our rights are lost when the Constitution is treated like a suggestion and not like a law. Why is it that originalists always bring up the abortion issue and NEVER bring up specific cases by which specifically enumerated rights set forth in the Constitution are taken away?
The disadvantage of this method of argument is that people then believe that abortion is your only issue — because it is the only one you talk about.
The thundering silence on your part is with all of the specifically enumerated rights that are taken away in family law: Denial of equal protection of the laws to the men, on a few occasions to the women, the imposition of property division, alimony, and child support without requiring proof of WRONGDOING, and therefore deprivation of liberty and propoert without due process of law; and of course, slavery and involuntary servitude in the enforcement of alimony and child support obligations.
The Ninth Circus decision in U.S. v. Ballek, (9th Cir. 1999) 170 F.3d. 871 apecifically found that the duty of a parent to support a child and the government’s interest in the enforcement of that duty, creates an exception to the 13th Amendment’s prohibition of slavery and involuntary servitude except as punishment for a CRIME. Being a parent is not a CRIME.
This decision not only stripped parents without custody of their children of the protection against slavery and involuntary servitude, it stripped ALL parents of the protection of the 13th Amendment.
The offensive “rational basis” doctrine has been in force since the Slaughterhouse Cases in the 1870’s and was used to uphold the internment of United States Citizens of Japanese Ancestry during World War II.
Yet all we hear from you originalists is “abortion, abortion, abortion”.
You make the argument for the original interpretation of the Constitution, applying the strict constructionist “what it says is and what it does not say is not” approach to interpretation of both constitutional and statutory provisions so much better by citing the upholding of the wartime internments and the Child Support Crusade as examples of how our rights are lost when the Constitution is treated like a suggestion and not like a law.

]]> By: chas http://mensnewsdaily.com/2006/07/10/americas-mullahs/comment-page-1/#comment-14623 chas Mon, 10 Jul 2006 18:36:06 +0000 http://mensnewsdaily.com/2006/07/10/americas-mullahs/#comment-14623 Very well written, only one thing needs to be added, for those who disagree, a way to peacefully leave. There are a lot of major cities in the US that will never return to the original meaning of the Constitution. They will never be persuaded by debate. We need a divorce due to irreconcilable differences. If not, then for people like me, who still understand and believe in the original meaning of the Constitution, we need the right to go to war to protect that belief, rather than being forced by them to live my whole life watching it slip away, with weak-kneed conservative leaders who are unwilling to use force to impose it on those who disagree. As long as people who no longer accept the original meaning of Constitution are in the same country as those who do, they will always find a way to impose their twisted way of thinking on the rest of us. Very well written, only one thing needs to be added, for those who disagree, a way to peacefully leave. There are a lot of major cities in the US that will never return to the original meaning of the Constitution. They will never be persuaded by debate. We need a divorce due to irreconcilable differences. If not, then for people like me, who still understand and believe in the original meaning of the Constitution, we need the right to go to war to protect that belief, rather than being forced by them to live my whole life watching it slip away, with weak-kneed conservative leaders who are unwilling to use force to impose it on those who disagree. As long as people who no longer accept the original meaning of Constitution are in the same country as those who do, they will always find a way to impose their twisted way of thinking on the rest of us.

]]>