Fair and Impartial Jurisprudence in Alabama

[weed]

Hair Splitting?

Article IV
Section. 2.
Clause 1: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.



Main Entry: en·ti·tle·ment
Pronunciation: -'tI-t&l-m&nt
Function: noun
Date: 1944
1 a : the state or condition of being entitled : RIGHT b : a right to benefits specified especially by law or contract
2 : a government program providing benefits to members of a specified group; also : funds supporting or distributed by such a program

 

[sunstruck]

Well sunny, "rights" and "equality" are not the same thing. Never were. The words mean two different things entirely.
The "rights" versus "equality" issue is not some PC splitting of infinitives. The words mean something and they mean something quite different. Nothing is a "right" just because the state or federal government allows you to do it.

Ishmael

That's classy Ish.

Gay people have a RIGHT to the same PRIVILEGES as straight people.

You aren't two. You the difference, so either you're arguing just to piss me off, which we both know you do on occasion do, or you are looking for excuses to demean the Gay Rights Movement. The former is just childish, the later is grotesque.

 

[Hamletmaschine]

. . . The "rights" versus "equality" issue is not some PC splitting of infinitives. The words mean something and they mean something quite different. Nothing is a "right" just because the state or federal government allows you to do it.

No, it's just your usual obstructionist ploy, as Sunny pointed out.

Linguistic fundamentalism, like any fundamentalism, is not a very attractive trait. Most people try to use words to communicate. You use them to try to put people in their place.

 

[sunstruck]

No, it's just your usual obstructionist ploy, as Sunny pointed out.

Linguistic fundamentalism, like any fundamentalism, is not a very attractive trait. Most people try to use words to communicate. You use them to try to put people in their place.

I you Proffeseur Hotpants.

 

[Hamletmaschine]

I you, too, of course. You sure you don't want that graduate assistantship...?

 

[sunstruck]

I you, too, of course. You sure you don't want that graduate assistantship...?

LOL How many degrees does a person need when they don't work?

 

[Hamletmaschine]

Well, I thought you might be looking for something interesting and fun to do in your spare time. I never force students to take their clothes off in class, if that's what you're worried about.

 

[sunstruck]

Would you force them to take them off after class? You know, if they asked nicely?

 

[Hamletmaschine]

Those are generally "A" students. Funny how that works.

 

[sunstruck]

LOL Maybe you just attract brilliant females. Seems to be the trend if you ask me.

 

[Hamletmaschine]

Why I deee-clare. You could turn a fella's head, Miss Sunstruck.

Okay, I better shut up about this before these nabobs come in here and start accusing me of fucking all my students again.

 

[Unclebill]

Originally posted by Pookie
Clearly, certain civil liberties are denied to the GLBT population by specific laws and court decisions. Marriage and adoption (to name just a few) are denied to GLBT couples based solely on their sexual preference. Until this past June, GLBT individuals were considered criminals in many places because of what they did in the privacy of their own homes.

I'll ask this just to know where you stand, and I'm not accusing you of this either. But are you a homophobe? Also, do GLBT individuals not deserve the same rights and liberties as heterosexual individuals?

"Gay rights" to me are those rights and liberties denied the GLBT community, but are enjoyed by the heterosexual community. Nothing more ... nothing less.

CONGRATULATIONS! and thank you for finally hitting close to the mark.

This is near what I've been hoping to finally stimulate enough critical thought to approach.

The problem everyone is feinting around and not seeing is legal discrimination for one select group, married heterosexuals.

The problem is government discriminating despite the equal treatment under the law mandate; it is legislating privilege for some in society and denying others the same privilege. How does this square with the concept of equal treatment under the law?

It is not a matter of rights that some have that others don't. It's the fact that government is here again meddling where it has no legitimate authority.

Once a person reaches adult autonomy, it is their legitimate right to choose their heir, their next of kin by designation or whatever other decision of this nature they choose. What everyone here is decrying is the interference of government into the realm of private personal decisions, an area where government has no business.

I know it may come as a very unpleasant surprise to some but you are once again espousing the libertarian point of view.

Originally posted by Pookie
I do think UB (correct me if I'm wrong) is interpreting "gay rights" to mean special rights for the GLBT community.

In this particular thread, my entire intent was to draw attention to the specific terms being used and get beyond the rhetoric to the real issue as addressed above.

However, there are attempts of the GLBT community as well as others to have precisely the "special right" class of legislated privilege enacted for their specific benefit.

A discussion we've had before on this BB is the right to freedom of association. Part of that is manifest in the ACLU attack on the Boy Scouts. The Boy Scounts as a private organization have every right to determine who they elect to accept as members. If they choose not to accept homosexuals as leaders, that is entirely their right.

Similarly, if a business chooses not to hire a person for any reason whatsoever, it is their right to so choose.

Laws which force them to hire someone they choose would not freely choose are a gross infringement on one's freedom. This is the clearest evidence of a government that is degenerating into a tyranny because it is favoring one person or group over another; a government of men, not laws. This was a common practice of the Saddam government in Iraq. The practice there was more dire and terrorizing, but the underlying principles are the same.

Originally posted by Pookie
The Courts are getting closer to overturning those laws that discriminate based on sexual orientation.

Which laws that discriminate should not be repealed?

Originally posted by sunstruck
Only for people so caught up in titles and rhetoric that they ignore the cause behind the bumper sticker.

This is the other problem I have been identifying for quite some time also.

It is not rhetoric, it is communication of what one means. Clarity of communication is essential to effective communications. If you use the term rights in a totally erroneous context, then you are not communicating.

When you misuse a term so vital as rights, you do a disservice to the true meaning of the term by further obfuscating its real meaning. Far too few people today understand the true implications of the concept rights and throw the term around freely in a context that completely misconstrues the concept.

Originally posted by Hamletmaschine
And, remember, this is from someone who thinks the so-called PC-ers are acting like the language and thought police.

Which is precisely what the PC movement is all about; why do they institute campus speech codes? Is it not to suppress undesirable or offensive speech? Don't you find that just a tad incongruous with free speech? And suppression of speech requires of necessity suppression of thought since thought is the precursor of sppech, is it not? Perhaps that latter does not apply to liberals, though.

Originally posted by zipman7
Judges regularly rule on the "spirit of the law" when the letter of the law doesn't cover a specific example. The commandments were viewed as an "endorsement" of one religion as opposed to merely an acknowledgement of it.

Moore was not punished for doing that, but rather for intentionally violating the federal order to remove it, which he had an obligation to do.

Considering the founders opened the first session of Congress with a prayer, the Supreme Court of the U. S. has the Ten Commandments posted there, and numerous other considerations of a similar nature, the phrase "spirit of the law" here apparently means whatever the presiding judge decided to assert it means from his own personal perspective.

Judges do this far too routinely as the idiot here in the San Diego area who decided the Boy Scouts are a religious organization and were to be prohibited the use of public lands. It is the assholes like this that should be impeached and removed from the practice of law, not merely the bench, because they are a detriment to a nation of laws.

The founders were completely in consonance with the idea that there is no moral obligation to obey a law that is wrong [think Boston Tea Party which was specifically directed agaisnt an unjust (in their judgment) tax]. Similarly, I expect they would agree that it is not moral to obey an invalid court order since it does not even carry the legitimacy (or pseudo-legitimacy) of legislation.

If you recall, their basis for a trial by jury was the idea that a jury of one's peers could and would discern unjust laws and deny enforcement thereby invalidating unjust laws..

 

[Unclebill]

Originally posted by Ishmael
Well sunny, "rights" and "equality" are not the same thing. Never were. The words mean two different things entirely.

Rights are yours as a human being. They are inalienable and can neither be bestowed nor taken away by the state. They exist outside the law. Those 'rights' that are codified in the first several ammendments to the Constitution are those attributes that are considered "rights" by our government. They are NOT granted by the constitution, they are considered to exist outside the constitution.

Everything else is priveledge. Driving an automobile is a priviledge. One that many would argue is a "right".

Another example is abortion. It is considered by many to be a 'right'. It isn't. It has been permited by the Supreme Court. It is not a 'right' and will never be a right until it is defined as being a 'right' by an ammendment to the Constitution. It matters little which side of the fence you're on in this issue because if it were really a 'right' a change in the consistancy of the Supreme Court would make no difference at all. Obviously that change could effect the renderings of the court.

Equality simply means that one law applies to all. No consideration of gender, race, ethnic background, sexual orientation, whatever.

The "rights" versus "equality" issue is not some PC splitting of infinitives. The words mean something and they mean something quite different. Nothing is a "right" just because the state or federal government allows you to do it.

Ishmael

Ish, you bring up an idea here that deserves direct attention because I think you have a slight misperception. Regarding your assertion that abortion is not a right, you make some inferences that lead me toward the perception that you lend some credence to Madison's [I believe it was] desire that the bill of rights not enumerate specific rights for fear the interpretation become that these were the only rights men were thought to have (your specific statement being underlined above).

Rights are not a product of the Constitution. Rights are innate, i.e., endowed by the Creator as the founders stated in the Declaration of Independence.

There is a fairly narrow philosophical point here but a VERY important one because far too many people labor under a severe misconception. The general lack of understanding of the concept of rights is a major problem I have in communicating with many people who don’t grasp the very important differences in distinguishing between rights and privileges.

Rights do not pertain to a thing, per se. Rights pertain to one's choices and actions. That you have a right to freedom does not guarantee anything but your ability to act for your own benefit without being coercively prohibited, IOW, no one may force you do act otherwise.

Your life is yours by default, i.e., by the fact that you are responsible to sustain it. In order to sustain it, you necessarily must be free to take the actions necessary to that end.

You do not have a right to expect another to take over that responsibility and no one has any legitimate basis for requiring that another do so.

Property rights, those rights pertaining to the ownership of things, are the direct derivative of one’s right to his life. The right to own an item of property is derived from the fact that in order to create, produce or acquire it, one must expend some measure of one’s life energy. That expenditure of one’s energy is either in the form of finding such an object in nature, e.g., food, creating or building it as a shelter or tools, or possessing something which one, having legitimately gained, exchanges in free trade with another who has the item one desires.

Once the object is so acquired, then one exercises the right of ownership, i.e., property rights. But this right presupposes that that which one desires exists and that one has the capacity to procure it by trade. That which does not exist, one cannot have any right to claim.

That is why it is fallacious to say one has a right to a job. One has the right to seek a job if it exists but one has no right to have a job created for him by another. If he can create the job himself, then by right he may do so and it is his so long as he chooses to retain it.

In this respect, he may even “sell” the job by hiring another to perform it so long as they two parties can come to a mutually satisfactory agreement regarding the terms.

So how does this relate to abortion, you ask?

Abortion is a specific medical procedure. In an abstract sense, it may be considered like property since it is essentially a skill the medical practitioner sells. Like physical property addressed above, no one has a right to the employment of this skill unless they can find a provider and then can reach a mutual agreement on terms of sale.

Toward your argument, though, abortion in the general sense of the discussion is a choice of action. And rights fully and completely apply in the arena of choice and action of the individual. Thus a woman has a right to seek an abortion as the logical extension of her right to her life. It is her life and she is the only one with a legitimate decision making power over the choices and actions she takes with regard to decisions relating to the manner of living her life.

And it is the libertarian [and Objectivist] point of view that government has no legitimacy when it intercedes in such personal choices and actions.

And it is the rather technical distinction above that needs to be clearly understood to properly deal with the all too erroneous use of the term rights by virtually everyone today. It is this misunderstanding and confusion that leads to such mangled attempts to communicate as noted earlier when I persisted in asking my question regarding the use of the term “rights” when in fact that was not the problem. And I find it somewhat entertaining that at least one response to my questions was immediately to raise the spectre of my homophobia!

 

[Ishmael]

Ish, you bring up an idea here that deserves direct attention because I think you have a slight misperception. Regarding your assertion that abortion is not a right, you make some inferences that lead me toward the perception that you lend some credence to Madison's [I believe it was] desire that the bill of rights not enumerate specific rights for fear the interpretation become that these were the only rights men were thought to have (your specific statement being underlined above).

<snip for brevity>

And it is the libertarian [and Objectivist] point of view that government has no legitimacy when it intercedes in such personal choices and actions.

And it is the rather technical distinction above that needs to be clearly understood to properly deal with the all too erroneous use of the term rights by virtually everyone today. It is this misunderstanding and confusion that leads to such mangled attempts to communicate as noted earlier when I persisted in asking my question regarding the use of the term “rights” when in fact that was not the problem. And I find it somewhat entertaining that at least one response to my questions was immediately to raise the spectre of my homophobia!

I agree with you, hence my modifying phrase "our constituion."

Not many bother with the Federalist Papers though. So your reference to Madison is probably going to go by the wayside. The various states, and I think that either Vermont or New Hampshire were refusing to ratify the constitution, without the inclusion of the Bill of Rights. My point was simply that if you are going to have a list you can add to it, or subtract from it. Because the list was started we're stuck with it. The other side of the coin is that I can readily see the second ammendment rights going away without it. C'est le guerre.

I hear you on the homophobe thing. I just stay out of the discussions now. It's a no win situation. Emotions run rampant.

Ishmael

 

[Pookie]

CONGRATULATIONS! and thank you for finally hitting close to the mark.

This is near what I've been hoping to finally stimulate enough critical thought to approach.

The problem everyone is feinting around and not seeing is legal discrimination for one select group, married heterosexuals.

The problem is government discriminating despite the equal treatment under the law mandate; it is legislating privilege for some in society and denying others the same privilege. How does this square with the concept of equal treatment under the law?

It is not a matter of rights that some have that others don't. It's the fact that government is here again meddling where it has no legitimate authority.

Once a person reaches adult autonomy, it is their legitimate right to choose their heir, their next of kin by designation or whatever other decision of this nature they choose. What everyone here is decrying is the interference of government into the realm of private personal decisions, an area where government has no business.

I understand what you're saying regarding "rights" and "privileges". The term "rights" has been used in such a broad manner over the past number of generations that many don't make a distinction between the two terms. Clearly, there is a difference. I believe that our position on the issue is the same too.

I know it may come as a very unpleasant surprise to some but you are once again espousing the libertarian point of view.

At least you have something to base that statement on.

However, there are attempts of the GLBT community as well as others to have precisely the "special right" class of legislated privilege enacted for their specific benefit.

A discussion we've had before on this BB is the right to freedom of association. Part of that is manifest in the ACLU attack on the Boy Scouts. The Boy Scounts as a private organization have every right to determine who they elect to accept as members. If they choose not to accept homosexuals as leaders, that is entirely their right.

I'm aware that there are some that do want '"special right" class of legislated privilege' when it comes to certain things. I personally don't agree with forcing a church or truely private "club" to accept anyone they do not wish. I don't agree with forcing churches to perform marriage cermonies for gay couples. But if it is a government supported/operated group, then it should not be allowed to discriminate based on sexual orientation, race, sex, etc. I tend to support the ACLU in many of their activities, but I do disagree with them at times too.

Which laws that discriminate should not be repealed?

No law that discriminates should be allowed to stand. As you said, it is government legislating privilege for some in society and denying others the same privilege. It's by its very nature contrary to the concept of equal treatment under the law, and clearly a violation of the US Constitution.

... And I find it somewhat entertaining that at least one response to my questions was immediately to raise the spectre of my homophobia!

I honestly wasn't attempting to say you were being homophobic with your post. I asked my question with an assumption that we were talking about two different things, which is why I stated that I wasn't accusing you of it. I thought it would be helpful to clarify the situation.

When the meaning of something is different between the parties in a discussion, it can lead to some ... amusing ... exchanges at times.

 

[Hamletmaschine]

I'll keep this simple:

. . . It is not rhetoric, it is communication of what one means. Clarity of communication is essential to effective communications. If you use the term rights in a totally erroneous context, then you are not communicating.

When you misuse a term so vital as rights, you do a disservice to the true meaning of the term by further obfuscating its real meaning. Far too few people today understand the true implications of the concept rights and throw the term around freely in a context that completely misconstrues the concept.

In this paragraph, you are playing the Language and Thought Cop. You make a silly distinction between "rhetoric" and "communication" that stigmatizes the former and valorizes the latter, without apparently realizing that all communication is rhetorical. You assert that clarity equals effectiveness without, apparently, realizing that neither of those terms is unambiguous (hence, unclear; hence, ineffective). And then you presume to tell us that if we use a term in an "erroneous context"--whatever that might be--we are not communicating, which suggests that words should only be used in their "correct" contexts--whatever those might be. And then there's the usual nonsense about the "true meaning" of words.

(Now, don't go running to your dictionary, because that won't help you. If all those words did have a "true meaning," you'd only find one entry next to each word. The dictionary is tangible, visible, smack-you-in-the-face proof that words do not have "true meanings.")

. . . Which is precisely what the PC movement is all about; why do they institute campus speech codes? Is it not to suppress undesirable or offensive speech? Don't you find that just a tad incongruous with free speech? And suppression of speech requires of necessity suppression of thought since thought is the precursor of sppech, is it not? Perhaps that latter does not apply to liberals, though.

And, then, in this, the very next paragraph, you suggest that playing the Language and Thought Cop is "what the PC movement is all about."

Congratulations! I secretly knew this Libertarian thing was just a pose, and that you were really PC all along.

 

[Unclebill]

I'm for keeping it simple.

Originally posted by Pookie
. . .
No law that discriminates should be allowed to stand. As you said, it is government legislating privilege for some in society and denying others the same privilege. It's by its very nature contrary to the concept of equal treatment under the law, and clearly a violation of the US Constitution.
. . .

Do you realize that the income tax code discriminates as do social welfare programs among a host of others?

Originally posted by Hamletmaschine
I'll keep this simple:

I'm a great advocate of the KISS principle.

Rhetoric is generally the type of communication aimed at persuading. There are numerous people who, in their efforts to persuade, do so without scrupulous regard for accuracy. Their primary effort is to achieve agreement from the target audience and the accuracy of the argument is of secondary concern if any at all.

My distinction regarding rhetoric is toward that class of argument which I have encountered more than once here. My primary aim in communicating is to be concise in terms and accurate in information conveyed.

Right, like many words, has several possible definitions. Obviously, in most if not all cases the specific meaning applicable can be derived from context.

Thus, it should be apparent to most if not all that in the particular discussion above, I was NOT using the definition pertaining to direction as in "turn right at the next corner".

But within the overall context of the discussion, the meaning of a word does have and indeed requires consistency. If the meaning changes from moment to moment or person to person, it is in fact meaningless. And that is my point.


The term right in a philosophical and political context has a specific meaning. That meaning has been obfuscated and obscured and blurred to mean so many things to so many different people, it is difficult to communicate the true meaning any longer using the word. Thus, I find it often necessary to clarify in discussions in which I participate.

If any party to the discussion holds a significantly different meaning for the term, then I cannot communicate accurately and hence effectively with them nor they with me.

And I think Pookie's response serves to support my point.

 

[Hamletmaschine]

Re: I'm for keeping it simple.

I'm a great advocate of the KISS principle.

In spite of the ponderous length of your posts, this does not surprise me.

Rhetoric is generally the type of communication aimed at persuading. There are numerous people who, in their efforts to persuade, do so without scrupulous regard for accuracy. Their primary effort is to achieve agreement from the target audience and the accuracy of the argument is of secondary concern if any at all.

Yes, there is of course that classical, Aristotelian definition of rhetoric as the study of the available means of persuasion. Your use of the term conjured up the colloquial stigmatization of rhetoric ("mere rhetoric"), which is laughable, for it always uses rhetoric to suggest that rhetoric should not be used.

Your position here is more Platonistic than Aristotelian. That's a bit of a surprise.

My distinction regarding rhetoric is toward that class of argument which I have encountered more than once here. My primary aim in communicating is to be concise in terms and accurate in information conveyed.

Understood. No formal discussion or debate is possible unless the parameters of meaning for key terms can be established. If this were a formal debating forum, your efforts to set the terms of discussion would be unsurprising. But this isn't that.

I don't think one can, in good faith, pretend to be shocked that people in an informal discussion board in the electonic medium of the internet don't follow the rules of formal debate.

Right, like many words, has several possible definitions. Obviously, in most if not all cases the specific meaning applicable can be derived from context.

Thus, it should be apparent to most if not all that in the particular discussion above, I was NOT using the definition pertaining to direction as in "turn right at the next corner".

But within the overall context of the discussion, the meaning of a word does have and indeed requires consistency. If the meaning changes from moment to moment or person to person, it is in fact meaningless. And that is my point.

The meaning of a word does change from moment-to-moment, from user-to-user, from context-to-context. In techincal terms, language symbols are analogously coded, rather than digitally coded. It is possible, in certain situations, to consent to a digital coding of a particular word or symbol, at least in the short run. But to fix its meaning forever and for everyone is impossible. Meaning can never be fixed, even though meaning-making requires a kind of "fixing."

The term right in a philosophical and political context has a specific meaning. That meaning has been obfuscated and obscured and blurred to mean so many things to so many different people, it is difficult to communicate the true meaning any longer using the word. Thus, I find it often necessary to clarify in discussions in which I participate.

Again, this isn't the philosophical or political science club--and thus is the nature of language. What you call "error" (obfuscation, obscured or fuzzy meanings) is just the way it is. It is the rule, not the exception. The ideal of pure or true or perfect communication is a fantasy, a dream.

If any party to the discussion holds a significantly different meaning for the term, then I cannot communicate accurately and hence effectively with them nor they with me.

And I think Pookie's response serves to support my point.

And, yet, we manage to communicate...however messily and inefficiently.

 

[Unclebill]

Re: Re: I'm for keeping it simple.

Originally posted by Hamletmaschine
Understood. No formal discussion or debate is possible unless the parameters of meaning for key terms can be established. If this were a formal debating forum, your efforts to set the terms of discussion would be unsurprising. But this isn't that.

I don't think one can, in good faith, pretend to be shocked that people in an informal discussion board in the electonic medium of the internet don't follow the rules of formal debate.

While the forum may in reality be an informal one, I choose not to relax my standard of accuracy or clarity in my attempts to communicate with precision my ideas. That is my choice and others are not bound by it certainly. Likewise, if they do not adhere to some measure of consistency, then their ability to communicate to me accurately and clearly is limted.

Originally posted by Hamletmaschine
Again, this isn't the philosophical or political science club--and thus is the nature of language. What you call "error" (obfuscation, obscured or fuzzy meanings) is just the way it is. It is the rule, not the exception. The ideal of pure or true or perfect communication is a fantasy, a dream.

Being a relentless proponent of reality, I recognize that fact. And to make the best effort to convey an accurate portrayal of my ideeas, when I perceive the necessity, I clarify the meaning of he terms I use in that effort. And with adequate effort, the "error" can be minimized even if it cannot be eradicated.

My aim in communicating is to make my ideas as understandable to others as is possible. Once they understand the idea, then it is their choice to evaluate it against the standard of reality and to accept of reject it on merit.