Some More Thoughts Article

[jbeegoode]

The mind begins to wander....

I put together some thoughts about naturism and put some pics to it from De Anza from a few years back. That place is so special, the surreal mystery of the place, the magic sort of transferred into the text, like setting it to music. I thought that these were some pretty neat photos that needed a place. They were taken by my friend, me and DF.

https://thefreerangenaturist.org/2020/09/21/some-more-thoughts/#more-8560

Jbee

[nuduke]

Your thoughts on the state of nakedness, Jbee, illustrate the difficulty of expressing just what it is about being naked that we all find so compelling.  The state of being naked is, for the naturist, to live in some sort of different spiritual dimension.  Its nice, but what about it makes it nice?  It is the hardest thing to define that I know.  And heaven knows I have tried to define it for my wife and indeed have in times of yore written upon the subject here and in TSNS, but to no clear conclusion.  It is as it is, one supposes. 
John

[jbeegoode]

Lots of different reasons to bother to drop trough. I was focused on my sense of right and wrong and why for some it should be reason enough to call it a "Right."

To allude to a Supreme Court justice writings, before the court was cheapened into being just a group of politicians in robes and was there to protect we the peoples Rights in principle: I know it when I experience it and that should be reason enough. He was writing about defining porn at the time. I'm just saying that I know that it feels right, it is a right. We find these truths to be self evident...
Jbee

[Greenbare Woods]

To allude to a Supreme Court justice writings, before the court was cheapened into being just a group of politicians in robes and was there to protect we the peoples Rights in principle: I know it when I experience it and that should be reason enough. He was writing about defining porn at the time. I'm just saying that I know that it feels right, it is a right. We find these truths to be self evident...
Jbee

It would be good to find a US Supreme Court that would rely heavily on Constitution Amendments 9 and 10.   9 has been ignored for a century or more.  Nudist organizations should bring law suits under Amendment 9 and demand freedom of expression and freedom to choose our own body cover or not as a fundamental human right. 

[nuduke]

Well well, thank you Bob for giving me the opportunity to further my education by looking up the 9th and 10th Amendments.  The content of the American Constitution is not something often discussed in the UK and was not part of my school education.  I am now motivated to have a look at both the Constitution and the (27?) amendments.  Might make an interesting evenings study.


On the point about arguing from the 9th amendment, I guess one would have to show that the right to naturism was or is a valid right and that it was or is "retained by the people."   The problem might be in the definition of 'The People' which is, I believe an expression for the whole of the US citizenry.  They might not all agree with us!
John

[jbeegoode]

Nuduke: The first 10 (as I remember) Amendments are called "The Bill of Rights." This was mostly Jeffersonian addendum to protect the minority from the majority, as democratic process's majority could steamroll over others. Public opinion and who is in power changes, but the "Rights" endure, except these days when the courts are being packed by an organization bent on interpreting our Rights as flexible and only according to the intent of the Constitution when it was written well over 200 years ago. Instead of Rights as a more philosophical principle, they make it irrelevant hogwash to be politicized. The effect has been extreme erosion of the people's Rights over the last fifty years since the "Warren Court" established a principled interpretation.

We common people used to be able to consistently understand our Rights as something stable in principle that we could take to the bank. Now, much of it requires a lawyer to interpret it for us and "tell US" what our rights are. Thus, politicians in robes. A breakdown in the value, perhaps the greatest value of our government and our country. Striving for more perfect union requires more perfect principle and protections, but now it is mush and perfect union is breaking down for we the people, in favor of those in actual control, business and dishonest politicians bent on keeping power.

So, by your comment, I understand you to be saying that you interpret this as that majority trumps "Right" in USA, I would add the might doesn't trump "Right" either. "If something ain't right, then it's wrong," Bob Dylan.

If I got your meaning wrong,sorry, I'm just trying to help you educate yourself to our sensibilities over here, not to make argument. 
Jbee

[Greenbare Woods]

We common people used to be able to consistently understand our Rights as something stable in principle that we could take to the bank. Now, much of it requires a lawyer to interpret it for us and "tell US" what our rights are. Thus, politicians in robes. A breakdown in the value, perhaps the greatest value of our government and our country. Striving for more perfect union requires more perfect principle and protections, but now it is mush and perfect union is breaking down for we the people, in favor of those in actual control, business and dishonest politicians bent on keeping power.
Jbee

I'm glad that President Trump is getting to appoint Supreme Court Justices who read our Constitution and defend the Rights as written instead of "interpreting" changes according to political winds.  We have seen way to much abrogation of our rights since the Warren court and even before.  You are very right there. 

 

[jbeegoode]

Trump is getting his picks from The Federalist Society. The Federalist are the ones that originally giving opposition to the Bill of Rights. They are the ones who don't interpret with principle, but take historical data, often biased, and guess what the founders were going for, which deletes the basic principle that everyone understands.

For example, It is okay to read your emails and record your phone to create a case against you years later, because they had no email back then. The principle is private papers and correspondence, not just an abuse by the British occupation before the revolution and now, our government abuses us like the occupation did.

His appointments favor big business, laisse faire, unbridled, which always ends up with tyranny and monopoly for those who run the government. They are politically motivated appointments, which erode, not protect our freedoms.

For example, the Warren Court had a huge determination just to decide about yelling "fire" in a crowded place. It was a a really big deal. At that time Free speech was an absolute principle and easy to understand. Now there are many obstacles to express ourselves freely and a lawyer is required. So goes free expression down the tubes.

My opinion, but I figure that you are being duped on this one. The two highly religious appointments will not protect being naked. Time will tell.
Jbee

[Greenbare Woods]

Trump is getting his picks from The Federalist Society. The Federalist are the ones that originally giving opposition to the Bill of Rights.

Saying that The Federalists originally opposed the Bill of Rights is like saying Democrats originally were the Slave Defending Party.  However, Wikipedia says the Federalist Society was founded in 1982 to oppose the liberal view that the US Constitution was to be reinterpreted according to current agendas.  "The society states that it "is founded on the principles that the state exists to preserve freedom, that the separation of governmental powers is central to our constitution, and that it is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to say what the law is, not what it should be."

That sounds to me as advocating what you posted above, "We common people used to be able to consistently understand our Rights as something stable in principle that we could take to the bank. Now, much of it requires a lawyer to interpret it for us and "tell US" what our rights are. Thus, politicians in robes."  It sounds to me that the Federalist Society and you are much in agreement, our Rights should be stable in principle, not something to be waived off according to a current political agenda.

For example, the Warren Court had a huge determination just to decide about yelling "fire" in a crowded place. It was a a really big deal. At that time Free speech was an absolute principle and easy to understand. Now there are many obstacles to express ourselves freely and a lawyer is required. So goes free expression down the tubes.

My opinion, but I figure that you are being duped on this one. The two highly religious appointments will not protect being naked. Time will tell.
Jbee

I agree with your principles, Jbee, but it appears to me as if the Federalist Society members are the ones who support those principles, while the "liberals" on the bench are the ones who want to reinterpret away our formerly protected freedoms.  Chief Justice Warren and his court went a long way toward re-interpreting away our freedom.

[nuduke]

So, by your comment, I understand you to be saying that you interpret this as that majority trumps "Right" in USA, I would add the might doesn't trump "Right" either. "If something ain't right, then it's wrong," Bob Dylan.If I got your meaning wrong,sorry

Apology accepted!   Now mine: I didn't intend to imply any judgement whatsoever about majority rule versus ethics.  I was merely reporting that it was tricky to find a clear definition of what was meant in the time of the Constitution and today by the term 'the people' as in "We, the people" and assuming what the term meant, to see if you guys agreed.  No value judgment implied.
I did go on to read the whole Constitution and amendments.  Very interesting, very clear mostly and as a result of reading it, I can understand you guys' remarks about interpretation of it vs more strict adherence to its original meaning.  That the constitution has lasted best part of 3 centuries is a fine testament to it being a pretty good piece of legislation!!
This thread is giving me a lot of homework!! Now I need to look up what the Warren Courts are or were!
John

[jbeegoode]

You may find that it says that the Bill of Rights was a MAdison creation, but Jefferson was the main guy. If you read Jeffferson's writings and correspondence for years he laid out the premise. He was particulaerly concerned about the ignorant masses  and mobs covering up these rights. He saw them as principles.
 There was plenty of partisan crap trying to mess with it and documantation. These other "founding fathers" didn't draw it up, they just tried to amend it and did some.

The term "Roights" is fundamental stuff as Jefferson wroyte in teh Declaration of independnece. These Federalist are new age people using the words of the guys who didn't really draft it to make it less than principles, which do carry on inot today and are solid.
 
The Federalist Society does not adhere t those principles when it comes to court picks. It is just conservative people with big  business playing into the mix manipulating. Read Whitehouse.senate.gov, Sheldon Whitehouse. Read Politico.com "Why there's No Liberal Federalist Society, Evan Mandery, I think.

The Supreme Court Picks are the opposite of what  they purport to be. Do you really think that someone who thinks they can tell a woman and what to do with her body for religious reasoning will protect OUR right to walk in our bodies dressed as we would brightly pleased to do? TO support those picks is to shoot yourself in teh foot, but at least they won't take away the gun to do it with.

It is political picks for something that should be apolitical. Face it.
Jbee

[Greenbare Woods]

The Supreme Court Picks are the opposite of what  they purport to be.

Far out dude. (as we used to say in the 60s.) 

It is political picks for something that should be apolitical. Face it.Jbee

Even the Democratic Party wouldn't let FDR "Pack the court" as he wanted to do, but Biden Democrats are now advocating making it completely political. 

[Peter S]

but Biden Democrats are now advocating making it completely political

Writing purely as an outsider and therefore seeing these things through a variety of prisms that may or may not distort reality, the US Supreme Court already looks pretty politicised. It's always referred to in terms of its members' left-or-right leanings and how the balance can change and how that can affect any otherwise-political decision that ends up under legal challenge.

[Safebare]

I am always offended when media references the SCOTUS justices as liberal or conservative. The only purpose in doing so is to support an improper bias.
This is the first time I am beginning to understand what the term constitutional means in reference to judges. Of course 'all' judges adhere to constitutional law. How can one judge be more 'constitutional' than another??
The question really boils down to constitutional theory. To we interpret it as written, based on cultural factors at the time, or is it a living document that adapts.
I don't know how it could be anything other than a living document as it must address challenges that could not have been imagined at the time, but, on the other hand, some basic principles must transcend time. How to sort out which must stand vs which has to adapt.
Congress adopted the ACA, signed by the POTUS. The court should not be able to undermine it.
If only it were that simple.
~Safebare

[Greenbare Woods]

I am always offended when media references the SCOTUS justices as liberal or conservative. The only purpose in doing so is to support an improper bias.
This is the first time I am beginning to understand what the term constitutional means in reference to judges. Of course 'all' judges adhere to constitutional law. How can one judge be more 'constitutional' than another??
The question really boils down to constitutional theory. To we interpret it as written, based on cultural factors at the time, or is it a living document that adapts.

For quite a few years there have been political advocates who used the courts to "write" laws that the Congress would not enact.   Instead of what is written in plain language they "interpret" the law as a "living document" that means whatever their political agenda wants it to mean.  That is the crux of the argument.  Should the Congress be the body authorized to change the law, or should the courts "reinterpret" to enact laws that Congress opposed?  Conservatives mostly believe that Congress should write laws and the Court should enforce the laws as written.  Liberals mostly believe that laws need to be revised and reinterpreted for "cultural factors" and political agendas. So we have conservative (law upholding) and liberal (law revising/writing) judges.