Hi all it's me your lovable counterweight to the world at large. Here to keep things rolling. I'm sure that no one really missed me in my absence and I'm sure that no one really cares that I'm posting agian but being the press whore that I am I couldn't resist making the announcement. So HI EVERYBODY!!!!!
_____________________
Ford shocks and struts
Shock absorber
Shocks and struts

Johnny posted this link in another thread. I love this site, I instantly bookmarked it. I thought it might be fun for everyone to list the warriors they most identify with. You can pick more than one.

Also, what do you see other users on this forum as?

I'll go first: I like to think of myself as an aspiring Philosopher, although I'm not quite there yet. Obviously, I'm also Atheist.

On various occasions, I also admit to exhibiting the traits of the following, though not necessarily on this forum: Artiste, Big Cat, Me Too, Bliss Ninny, Bong, Capitalista, Compost, Diplomat, Duelist, Ennui, Evil Clown, Grammarian, Grenade, Grunter, Jerk, Kung-Fu Master (perhaps aspiring), Lonely Guy, Lurker, Necromancer, Nitpick, Perv, Pithy Phrase, halfway between Rebel Leader and Rebel Without A Clue, halfway between Big Dog and Rottweiler Puppy, Target, Troglodyte (sort of, at least the Libertarian part), and Yuk Yuk.

What I see some other people here as:

Johnny - Admin (simply because he is, though he doesn't abuse the power), Deacon, Tireless Rebutter, Artful Dodger, Ideologue (a little bit), Philosopher with a healthy dose of Profundus Maximus, Duelist.

Geegee - Deacon, Me Too, and a little bit of Garble.

Anti - Atheist, Enfant Provocateur, Me Too, and also Garble at times.
_______________________
Ford shocks and struts
Shock absorber
Shocks and struts

"Clarification: Madison believed that there was no need for a BoR in the U.S. Constitution because: (1) the States already protected those substantive guarantees in state constitutions, and (2)"

I was going on memory when I said that.  That's not what I remember.  If you have a source handy I'd appreciate it.

"that the BoR was designed as a check on federal power, not state power."

No, I'm down with that.  If my recollection from Madison was correct, though, then he felt that the Constitution didn't need the BoR because those rights were already protected by the Constitution and didn't need to be enumerated- and at the same time, the Constitution also protected those rights at the level of the states. 

Now, even if we determined that Madison believed in the manner you did, my argument here would still hold.  It is a controlling principle that Federal powers override state powers.  Thus, if in fact the Constitution protected the rights in question without enumerating them, it should follow then that this protection extended also to the states- with the states being unable to override them.

It has been so long since I looked at all this that its really unwise of me to raise such issues with a lawyer of your stature.  :)

"(1) They goofed.  Alito's opinion points out that scholarly commentary from all points on the political spectrum seems to agree on that."

I read Alito's opinion but must have missed the overall agreement.  I mean, let's remember that 4 justices refused to incorporate the 2nd amd here.  There have been a few prominent liberal legal scholars who have acknowledged that the Constitution pretty clearly lays out a right to the individual to bear arms, but here we had four who were ready deny that the 14th amd actually did incorporate this amendment. 

"Later incarnations of the court would think differently."

The inherent danger of not sticking to the words on the paper.  :)  Live by the current thinking of the court, die by the current thinking of the court.

"(3) Power grab.  When they did start incorporating, they wanted control over what to incorporate."

Now that I can totally see, without objection.  :)

Audio of July 14th KFUO interview
      

Below is the MP3 of the KFUO radio broadcast on July 14th.  My segment is the last one, beginning at 5:30 p.m. The topic is, broadly, ‘the uniqueness of Christianity.’
         

http://sntjohnny.com/front/audio-of-july-14th-kfuo-interview/1053.html
      

I hope that you are able to specify how and in what way Christianity is 'unique' in a clear manner. Skeptics (and 14 year olds with Google) are always so quick to jump on the 'similarities' between Christianity and other pagan beliefs or simply it's comprehensibility(?) to Mankind to argue that Mankind must have made it up. I guess in their minds only a belief system totally alien and incomprehensible would be true and adopted by billions. Heh.

KFUO radio 5:30 p.m. July 14; The uniqueness of Christianity
      

I’ll be on KFUO radio at 5:30 p.m. on July 14, 2010 discusing the uniqueness of Christianity.  Listen here:  http://www.kfuoam.org/TT_Main.htm I’ll update this with the archived file when I have it.
         

http://sntjohnny.com/front/kfuo-radio-530-p-m-july-14-the-uniqueness-of-christianity/1050.html
      

empowered.
      

Empowerment is a word I hear a lot these days. It’s often used in the context of no longer allowing or accepting a perceived injustice to continue in your life and define who you are. You will “rise above” it and thus become empowered. This means you will call the shots from now on.  How [...]
         

http://sntjohnny.com/front/empowered/992.html
      

You are also right about the early belief that the BoR applied to the states.  I was thinking of the exact example you gave, of Madison, who contended that the rights defended in the BoR are already protected via the Constitution.  I think that this really goes to prove my overall point.

Clarification: Madison believed that there was no need for a BoR in the U.S. Constitution because: (1) the States already protected those substantive guarantees in state constitutions, and (2) Unlike state governments, which have general authority absent constitutional restrictions, the national government had only the powers specified in the U.S Constitution.  Madison believed that the national government having only specified powers would serve as an inherent check on the power of the national government.  Madison obviously was not prescient on this point.

Early SC cases dispensed with that understanding, which I find to be really odd.

I don't think the SC dispensed with the early understanding -- I think it was consistent with the early understanding -- that the BoR was designed as a check on federal power, not state power.  It was inconsistent with a literalist reading of at least some of the amendments given by some state courts that would have applied those amendments within their states (occasionally, a state would lack one of the BoR guarantees -- even then there was a common law fallback position some of these courts would articulate in case they were wrong about the particular BoR guarantee applying to the states).

However, having said that, it amazes me that yet again the SC proceeded to interpret the 14th amd completely differently and only after a while did it occur to them to begin the incorporation process.  It makes me wonder, despite the analysis provided by (Thomas, if I recall correctly) that the P&I clause was so self-evidently understood.  If this is the case, how could it have taken so long?  And why the need for selective incorporation?

(1) They goofed.  Alito's opinion points out that scholarly commentary from all points on the political spectrum seems to agree on that. (2) Political bias -- they didn't want the BoR to apply to the states, so they gutted the 14th (I am speculating a little here, I seem to recall something like this but haven't done rigorous research on that point).  Later incarnations of the court would think differently.  (3) Power grab.  When they did start incorporating, they wanted control over what to incorporate.  That way they could say some things weren't incorporated if they didn't think they should be. This was actually fairly explicit in one of the SC's opinions that I read when researching/debating this with you.  It also paved the way (though much later) for incorporating stuff that wasn't even in the BoR, or any other part of the U.S. Constitution.

I would like to read more about the dissent.  I really enjoyed Scalia's arguments.  :)  If I didn't know better, Scalia is a forum flamer.  :)

Oh yeah.  He's a major flamer.

A Heart Like the King
      

I wonder if we realize how vast God’s love is for humanity. Beyond those who believe, but those who aren’t sure or do not (for whatever reason). I imagine one of my kids walking along a path and me placing sure footing in front of each step they take. Even if they hated me I [...]
         

http://sntjohnny.com/front/1040/1040.html
      

Online Apologetics Conference tomorrow
      

If anyone has wondered where I am- I’ve been working on the final details for the online apologetics conference:  http://onlineapologeticsconference.com/ It starts tomorrow morning (Friday, May 7th) and goes until Saturday.  I speak on Saturday… on Harry Potter, Phillip Pullman, Carl Sagan, etc.
         

http://sntjohnny.com/front/online-apologetics-conference-tomorrow/996.html