Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 51
  1. #31
    Joined
    May 2001
    Location
    MS,LA,GA,& AR
    Posts
    4,439
    Originally posted by tucker on 02-25-2004 at 09:38 AM
    The ultimate power lies in the hands of the Supreme Court
    Wrong! The “ultimate power” lies in the hands of the “People”, no exceptions.
    “Of The People By The People And For The People”.
    All people yes but last I checked this is a country where everything is based on the will of a majority of the people. Not some special interest group’s whims and beliefs or activist judges who think they are smarter than the people.
    Excuse me.......Last time I checked, we aren't under the will of the majority of the people. That would be a Democracy. We don't live under a Democracy (sometimes called mob rule). What we *do* live under is a constitutional republic.

  2. #32
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    10,810
    Originally posted by deadrody on 02-25-2004 at 03:17 PM
    ...
    But as inefficient and bloated as it may be, the system in place now may spread a bunch of stupid money around to this pet cause and that program, it is the best one for protecting individual rights, and the structure and balance of our government overall. To me THAT is most important.

  3. #33
    Joined
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Rock Hill, SC
    Age
    29
    Posts
    844
    Originally posted by tucker on 02-25-2004 at 09:38 AM



    Liberals,... are terrified by the thought of a “vote” and what the majority might decide.

    You know back in 2000 the majority elected a Democrat, but did he get elected?

  4. #34
    Joined
    May 2001
    Location
    MS,LA,GA,& AR
    Posts
    4,439

    Re: Re: "Activist Judges"

    Originally posted by TMack409 on 02-25-2004 at 07:09 AM
    "Activist" in this sense means ignoring the moral underpinnings of law.....on which our country depends for its "law and order" .

    Let me add to this a bit....(I hate it when work gets in the way of my TLR time!)

    By "activist judges" I mean to say in addition, that they are *not* about re-interpreting the law! What the *are* about is ignoring laws and statutes that are already on the books and writing new laws that fly in the face of existing ones.....Even the president has admitted he is powerless to stop rogue courts and activist judges.

    So....a constitutional amendment is required.

  5. #35
    Joined
    May 2001
    Location
    MS,LA,GA,& AR
    Posts
    4,439

    Furthermore.....

    What should be debated here is the fact that existing laws are being ignored ie not enforced. *That* is what's at the bottom of this issue.

  6. #36
    Joined
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    8,887
    By "activist judges" I mean to say in addition, that they are *not* about re-interpreting the law! What the *are* about is ignoring laws and statutes that are already on the books and writing new laws that fly in the face of existing ones.....Even the president has admitted he is powerless to stop rogue courts and activist judges.
    I'm glad we're still at the point in the argument. Thanks for showing that you're clueless to how the government works.

    Judges cannot and do not write laws.

    They decide the legality/constitutionality of laws created by the legislative branch. Comprendas? I don't know how to dumb it down any more than that. "Activist judges" in my mind are ones who do things against the wishes of the constitution, such as allowing prohibition, or segregation, or electing a president to office. Judges are allowed to use their emotions, somewhat, because they are trusted. They get to where they are by means of the politicians the people elect. It's an honor system that doesn't always work, as Bush can tell you with all the people he's appointed.

    Once again, how can you call people "activist judges" when they simply do their job? Why do you not call people who obviously decide against the constitution "activist judges"? Why are there no right-wing "activist judges" in the opinions of Conservatives?

    The lack of any fundamental understanding of how the government works is truly frightening and simply reinforces my beliefs of those who call themselves "Conservatives".
    Promote then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened.

  7. #37
    Joined
    May 2001
    Location
    MS,LA,GA,& AR
    Posts
    4,439
    Originally posted by Orangutan on 02-25-2004 at 06:56 PM

    Judges cannot and do not write laws.

    The Massachusetts Supreme Court defied that state's constitution; did a judge(s) not preside over that court????

  8. #38
    Joined
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    8,887
    The Massachusetts Supreme Court defied that state's constitution; did a judge(s) not preside over that court????
    How, exactly, did the Supreme Court defy the state's constitution?
    Promote then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened.

  9. #39
    Joined
    May 2001
    Location
    MS,LA,GA,& AR
    Posts
    4,439
    Originally posted by Orangutan on 02-25-2004 at 07:16 PM
    How, exactly, did the Supreme Court defy the state's constitution?

    Then you obviously don't know about their 4:3 decision [hint]???

    Around which all this controversy is swirling????

  10. #40
    Joined
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    8,887
    I know very well about the decision, but I'm asking you to tell me how their decision is in violation of the constitution.
    Promote then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened.

  11. #41
    Joined
    May 2001
    Location
    MS,LA,GA,& AR
    Posts
    4,439
    Originally posted by Orangutan on 02-25-2004 at 07:24 PM
    I know very well about the decision, but I'm asking you to tell me how their decision is in violation of the constitution.

    "(CNN) -- The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has cleared the way for lesbian and gay couples in the state to marry, ruling Tuesday that government attorneys "failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason" to deny them the right. "


    Key words here:
    Constitutionally adequate
    Only in the state of Vermont, is same sex marriage *permitted* by law under the state's constitution. And even they have a quirky work around for it.....
    No other state specifically permits it in their constitution.
    Last edited by TMack409; 02-25-2004 at 08:09 PM.

  12. #42
    Joined
    May 2001
    Location
    MS,LA,GA,& AR
    Posts
    4,439
    Originally posted by otoc on 02-24-2004 at 11:50 PM
    Bush is the activist for he wants to change the constitution. And you are wrong in your fears that a gay marriage in my state will have to be recognized in yours. So much for state's rights.
    otoc:
    He's not wrong to fear it. A gay marriage in one State would indeed have to be recognized in other states....

    Once gay marriage becomes constitutionally legal in one state then that gay marriage must be honored in every other state under the Federal Constitution's full faith and credit clause. So if Donna and Lisa are married in Massachusetts, that marriage must be recognized in, say, Georgia.

    I don't care what you heard John Kerry say, that's the law of the land.

  13. #43
    Joined
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    8,887
    [quote]Only in the state of Vermont, is same sex marriage *permitted* by law under the state's constitution. And even they have a quirky work around for it.....
    No other state specifically permits it in their constitution./quote]

    The Judges decided that the law was unconstitutional in that it denied citizens a right. The law is not constitutional, not the acts of the judges. I'm not sure how the decision of a court can be unconstitutional anyway.

    Show me a state constitution that specifically permits black men to marry white women on days named after deities.
    Promote then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened.

  14. #44
    Joined
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    2,408
    Originally posted by TMack409 on 02-25-2004 at 06:53 PM
    "(CNN) -- The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has cleared the way for lesbian and gay couples in the state to marry, ruling Tuesday that government attorneys "failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason" to deny them the right. "


    Key words here:

    Only in the state of Vermont, is same sex marriage *permitted* by law under the state's constitution. And even they have a quirky work around for it.....
    No other state specifically permits it in their constitution.
    Laws aren't created to "permit" but to restrict. If no law specifically restricts a behavior, then it's technically legal. That's where the Defense of Marriage Act comes in. It allows states to opt out of the Constitutional amendment governing how states must respond to statutes and laws created in other states. More information here:

    http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/...s/03356536.asp

    Whether or not "DOMA" is unconsitutitional is ultimately irrelevant: retarded and populist as it is, it has not been struck down by the courts and is thus still enforceable law.
    Epox 8RDA w/ 512 MB TwinMOS PC3200 (2x256MB)-=-Athlon XP 1700+ JIUHB:0310WPMW @ 2,305 (1.775v) 11.5 x 200 FSB-=-Antec ATX12V 400W PSU-=-Sapphire Radeon 9700 Pro @ 412/358-=-SB Live 5.1-=-Linksys NIC-=-Pioneer DVD-ROM drive-=-WD 'SE' 80GB-=-Chieftec Case w/ four 80 mm fans-=-WinXP Pro

    Watercooled: D-Tek White Water-=-DD Maze4 GPU-=-1972 Chevy K10 Pickup heatercore-=-2x120mm Evercool fans-=-HydorL30-=-1/2 ID Clearflex60-=-Zerex coolant

  15. #45
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    10,810
    Originally posted by TMack409 on 02-25-2004 at 09:19 PM
    otoc:
    He's not wrong to fear it. A gay marriage in one State would indeed have to be recognized in other states....

    Once gay marriage becomes constitutionally legal in one state then that gay marriage must be honored in every other state under the Federal Constitution's full faith and credit clause. So if Donna and Lisa are married in Massachusetts, that marriage must be recognized in, say, Georgia.

    I don't care what you heard John Kerry say, that's the law of the land.
    TMack, yes he is. Look at what Chris said and check out this from 1996. I had the same debate last night.
    http://www.cnn.com/US/9609/10/gay.marriage/
    September 10, 1996
    WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Senate gave final congressional approval Tuesday to a bill that would deny federal recognition of same-sex marriages and give states the right to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages licensed in other states.


    As Chris points out, this has never been tested in the courts, so the law holds. What happens in Massachusetts does not have an effect in other states.

    What happens when we bring it to the national front is, it will.

    edit: And what does Kerry have to do with it?!?
    Last edited by otoc; 02-25-2004 at 10:52 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •