The "Nicole Factor" Is Online

Welcome to the Nicole Factor at blogspot.com.
Powered By Blogger

The Nicole Factor

Search This Blog

Stage 32

My LinkedIn Profile

About Me

TwitThis

TwitThis

Twitter

Messianic Bible (As If the Bible Isn't)

My About.Me Page

Views

Facebook and Google Page

Reach Me On Facebook!

Talk To Me on Fold3!

Showing posts with label Constitution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Constitution. Show all posts

Saturday, February 18, 2012

Repost: Constitutional and Biblical Scholarship: "Like the Bible..."


"Like the Bible, it ought to be read again and again". (FDR via Epstein and Walker 1) In my personal opinion, no wonder FDR was an Anti Semite: that is, he treated the Constitution-- a living document-- and the Bible-- a fixed document-- as on the same par: that is, he thought that each was a document into which could read his own interpretation and thus implement said interpretation with the supposed support of said document. As FDR read Anti Semitism into the Bible, many have read their own interpretations into the Constitution.
The late Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall correctly stated that "the framers 'could not have imagined, nor would they have accepted, that the document they were drafting would one day be construed be a Supreme Court to which had been appointed a woman the descendant of an African slave.'" (ibid. 6) The Constitution was inherently "'defective from the start'" (ibid.) because of its status as a living, amendable document and scarily framed by WASP Supremacist, Unitarian, and Deist misogynists who treated the Bible in the same way that FDR later would-- and by treating the Bible as such, they framed the Constitution based on their inherently UnJewish and UnChristian concept of (for a lack of a better term) Judeo Christianity (or at least Judeo-Christian priniciples).
As in the awful perversion of Biblical study known as modern Biblical scholarship, Constitutional scholarship has produced schools of original intent, textualism, and original meaning-- all three of which (in the case of Constitutional scholarship) harken back to what the framers (often chauvinistically, WASPishly, Unitarianistically, and Deistically wanted); and stare decisis, polling jurisdictionism, and pragmatism-- all three of which seek to interpret and implement the Constitution within the context of changing times and other factors.
For example and for comparison:
  1. A Reform Jew may treat kashrut as no longer or even not ever really valid under modern Biblical scholarship's forms of original intent, original meaning, and pragmatism: "[Reform and Orthodox] differences in perspective can be seen in every aspect of life: how holy days and festivals are celebrated, how kashrut (the laws of keeping kosher) are kept, how the prayer service is organized and conducted, etc. But it is not accurate to generalize and say All Orthodox Jews do this...' or 'All Reform Jews do that...'"; and " For Reform, the Torah is the God-inspired attempt by Hebrews/Israelites/ Jews to understand their surroundings and their relationship with God. While it is a holy document, the Torah is rooted in the past, and we can even sometimes discern the circumstances under which certain sections were written down. Reform thus sees development in Judaism, not just through the biblical period but thereafter as well, so that we can continue the process of helping Judaism evolve by coming to our own understandings." ( Union For Reform Judaism)
  2. In the same way that Reform Jews in modern Biblical scholarship  see kashrut and other apparently-flawed and for-the-time institutions; many (including the late Justice Thurgood Marshall) in Constitutional scholarship use original intent, original meaning, and pragmatism to see the Constitution as the framers' " attempt... to understand their surroundings and their relationship with God" and government; and thus believe about the Constitution as Reform Jews believe about the Bible (including the New Testament; although to be fair, Orthodox Jews like Shmuely Boteach and Dr. Amy-Jill Levine believe the following more about the New Testament than do Reform Jews)-- that is, " While it is a [sacred] document, [the document] is rooted in the past, and we can even...discern [and study] the circumstances under which certain sections were written down. [We] thus sees development in [the underlying philosophy behind the document], not just through the [document's] period but thereafter as well, so that we can continue the process of helping [the document and philosophy underlying it] evolve by coming to our own understandings." In other words, Constitutional stare decisis, polling jurisdictionism, and textualism within the context of pragmatism and the other schools of Constitutional scholarship are born out of the idea that the Constitution is  the framers' " attempt... to understand their surroundings and their relationship with God" and government.
In conclusion, treating the Constitution as a living document and treating it as though it were the Bible (and vice versa) causes real problems. Firstly, one can pervert the Constitution into the always-good document that (as the late Justice Marshall rightly pointed out) it wasn't. Secondly, one can read his or her own interpretations into the Constitution and, to begin with, suggest that it was ever even based on Judeo-Christian principles to begin with when it was based on three main perversions of Christianity-- chauvinistic WASP Supremacism, Deism, and Unitarianism. Thirdly, one can (so to speak) turn the clock back on how the Constitution has become by using original intent, original meaning, and textualism if he or she so wishes to use those three as the ways to interpret the Constitution. 
In further conclusion; one can basically hold the supposedly-Judeo-Christian Constitution as sacred as the Bible and treat it as "[l]ike the Bible" instead of like the chauvinistic, WASP Supremacist, Deist, and Unitarian document that it would continue to be lest people like Justice Marshall continue to treat it like Reform Jews treat the Bible (and like some Orthodox Jews treat the New Testament as a part of the Bible).

Saturday, January 28, 2012

Constitutional and Biblical Scholarship: "Like the Bible..."

"Like the Bible, it ought to be read again and again". (FDR via Epstein and Walker 1) In my personal opinion, no wonder FDR was an Anti Semite: that is, he treated the Constitution-- a living document-- and the Bible-- a fixed document-- as on the same par: that is, he thought that each was a document into which could read his own interpretation and thus implement said interpretation with the supposed support of said document. As FDR read Anti Semitism into the Bible, many have read their own interpretations into the Constitution.
The late Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall correctly stated that "the framers 'could not have imagined, nor would they have accepted, that the document they were drafting would one day be construed be a Supreme Court to which had been appointed a woman the descendant of an African slave.'" (ibid. 6) The Constitution was inherently "'defective from the start'" (ibid.) because of its status as a living, amendable document and scarily framed by WASP Supremacist, Unitarian, and Deist misogynists who treated the Bible in the same way that FDR later would-- and by treating the Bible as such, they framed the Constitution based on their inherently UnJewish and UnChristian concept of (for a lack of a better term) Judeo Christianity (or at least Judeo-Christian priniciples).
As in the awful perversion of Biblical study known as modern Biblical scholarship, Constitutional scholarship has produced schools of original intent, textualism, and original meaning-- all three of which (in the case of Constitutional scholarship) harken back to what the framers (often chauvinistically, WASPishly, Unitarianistically, and Deistically wanted); and stare decisis, polling jurisdictionism, and pragmatism-- all three of which seek to interpret and implement the Constitution within the context of changing times and other factors.
For example and for comparison:
  1. A Reform Jew may treat kashrut as no longer or even not ever really valid under modern Biblical scholarship's forms of original intent, original meaning, and pragmatism: "[Reform and Orthodox] differences in perspective can be seen in every aspect of life: how holy days and festivals are celebrated, how kashrut (the laws of keeping kosher) are kept, how the prayer service is organized and conducted, etc. But it is not accurate to generalize and say All Orthodox Jews do this...' or 'All Reform Jews do that...'"; and " For Reform, the Torah is the God-inspired attempt by Hebrews/Israelites/ Jews to understand their surroundings and their relationship with God. While it is a holy document, the Torah is rooted in the past, and we can even sometimes discern the circumstances under which certain sections were written down. Reform thus sees development in Judaism, not just through the biblical period but thereafter as well, so that we can continue the process of helping Judaism evolve by coming to our own understandings." ( Union For Reform Judaism)
  2. In the same way that Reform Jews in modern Biblical scholarship  see kashrut and other apparently-flawed and for-the-time institutions; many (including the late Justice Thurgood Marshall) in Constitutional scholarship use original intent, original meaning, and pragmatism to see the Constitution as the framers' " attempt... to understand their surroundings and their relationship with God" and government; and thus believe about the Constitution as Reform Jews believe about the Bible (including the New Testament; although to be fair, Orthodox Jews like Shmuely Boteach and Dr. Amy-Jill Levine believe the following more about the New Testament than do Reform Jews)-- that is, " While it is a [sacred] document, [the document] is rooted in the past, and we can even...discern [and study] the circumstances under which certain sections were written down. [We] thus sees development in [the underlying philosophy behind the document], not just through the [document's] period but thereafter as well, so that we can continue the process of helping [the document and philosophy underlying it] evolve by coming to our own understandings." In other words, Constitutional stare decisis, polling jurisdictionism, and textualism within the context of pragmatism and the other schools of Constitutional scholarship are born out of the idea that the Constitution is  the framers' " attempt... to understand their surroundings and their relationship with God" and government.
In conclusion, treating the Constitution as a living document and treating it as though it were the Bible (and vice versa) causes real problems. Firstly, one can pervert the Constitution into the always-good document that (as the late Justice Marshall rightly pointed out) it wasn't. Secondly, one can read his or her own interpretations into the Constitution and, to begin with, suggest that it was ever even based on Judeo-Christian principles to begin with when it was based on three main perversions of Christianity-- chauvinistic WASP Supremacism, Deism, and Unitarianism. Thirdly, one can (so to speak) turn the clock back on how the Constitution has become by using original intent, original meaning, and textualism if he or she so wishes to use those three as the ways to interpret the Constitution. 
In further conclusion; one can basically hold the supposedly-Judeo-Christian Constitution as sacred as the Bible and treat it as "[l]ike the Bible" instead of like the chauvinistic, WASP Supremacist, Deist, and Unitarian document that it would continue to be lest people like Justice Marshall continue to treat it like Reform Jews treat the Bible (and like some Orthodox Jews treat the New Testament as a part of the Bible).

Tuesday, November 22, 2011

I Could But Won't Be Submitting My Sister to Masada2000's Infamous List (For Right Now)...

I ran into some errors on my computer, which I took as a sign. Meanwhile, I don't see how a Jew with relatives in Tel Aviv who were already betrayed by her kapo great-grandmother (Mary Rusnak Gaydos, whose name I absolutely submitted to Masada2000.org) is okay with betraying her relatives again. Voting for Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) is an ultimate betrayal of Israel.

What Congressional approval does Ron Paul need to help Israel fight Iran? Isn't blessing Israel more important than listening to Congress? George W. Bush thought so when he declared war against Kabul (Afghanistan and Pakistan, cf. 1 Kings 9:13). George W. Bush blessed the memory of Dana Falkenberg and blessed Dana Falkenberg's people and country when he had Israel's greatest and then-freshly-wounded ally invade Kabul.

Why would Ron Paul ever listen to one Self-Hating Mossad agent and withdraw support from Israel? By the way, Ron Paul could never get away with saying that on FOX News-- Self-Hating Wolf Blitzer let him get away with saying that (as my sister told me. I don't watch or support Anti Semitic, though I'll glance at it from time to time at school since it's on the cafeteria TVs, anyway; and all I see on CNN is Far Leftism and Anti Semitism).

Ron Paul had better not be a Self-Hating Jew-- or Jewish for that matter, anyway-- because he will be particularly cursed if he is:

1 Now the LORD had said to Abram:

Get out [Lekh Lekha] of your country,
From your family
And from your father’s house,
To a land that I will show you.
2 I will make you a great nation;
I will bless you
And make your name great;
And you shall be a blessing.
3 I will bless those who bless you,
And I will curse him who curses you;
And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”

Monday, November 21, 2011

The Statute of Limitations For Rape May've Expired for Natalie Wood, But Who Else Has Kirk Douglas Raped?

Back in his day, Kirk Douglas could've easily gotten the death penalty for rape, particularly child and adolescent rape. But then-16-year-old Natalie Wood was afraid to report him, and eventually went to her grave without doing so. But who else has Kirk Douglas raped in his day? He can't get the death penalty for any crimes after Coker v. Georgia (1977) and Kennedy v. Louisiana (2008), but ex-post facto applies only as it says that it does-- "ex-post facto-- after the fact". So once Coker and Kennedy came down, Douglas escaped the death penalty for any crime that he committed after each of the respective rulings were made. In other words, once the death penalty for rape was banned, it was banned for the here- or there-after.

But the question remains: since Kirk Douglas raped Natalie Wood and got away with it (before Coker and Kennedy), what did he do after Coker and Kennedy? And even since he got away with raping Natalie Wood, who else did he rape before Coker and Kennedy?

Since they can reopen the Natalie Wood drowning case, they can investigate Kirk Douglas to make sure that he hasn't done anything else since getting away with his own crimes against Natalie Wood-- and there's always probable cause to at least investigate someone who got away with rape once, no matter how long ago the statute of limitations on that particular rape expired.

Friday, June 24, 2011

To Geraldo Rivera's Producer, Christina Timothy

CT, morality sometimes takes precedence over the Constitution and other US law (and obviously is not in line with it at the time). Especially as a Jew, Geraldo ought to know that. In this case, he's behaving to a lesser degree and in a different but parallel way to my great-grandmother Gaydos- that is, Great-Grandma Gaydos cost the lives of relatives who died in the Holocaust because she followed US isolationist policy and did not send them the help which they requested; and in a similar way, Geraldo is costing Caylee's life and justice all the more.

Sunday, June 19, 2011

The Cops Listened In Illegally On Casey Anthony's Conversation? Re Roy Kronk

In the words of Jose Baez, "The answer is simple": the cops listened in legally either way; whether the way be that an inmate heard the Baez-Anthony conversation and (in street talk) snitched (By the way, I'm 21 and had no idea that "Zani" is street talk for "Xanax"- which goes to show how worldly Casey Anthony is compared to me. Anyway, either an inmate heard and snitched), or the cops (or corrections officers or whoever else) had a classified (secret) warrant from Judge Perry (since judges issue warrants, and Judge Perry would've had to have issued a non-Terry or  -Pringle, or other circumstanial or circumstance-mandated warrant).

Either way, Roy Kronk's girlfriend had the right to hear the police-given information and tip off the county (or community; either way, public worker) meter reader.