Stupid House

[cj001f]

This is Screwy - strip ALL federal courts? Create a law that can't be decided by the judiciary?

 

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040722-115443-3438r.htm

 

In a showdown on the role of Congress and the courts in defining marriage, the House voted yesterday to strip federal judges of the ability to rule on such cases, leaving the matter up to the states.

[Greg_W]

It looks like they are returning power to the States, which is where it is supposed to be. Thumbs up.

[JoshK]

This makes no fucking sense. So instead of allowing the courts to do their job (as the, what do you call it, um, constitution, says) they are going to instead force the courts to overrule this law?

 

I think any 3rd grader could tell you this is unconstituional.

 

"The Republicans have decided that if you are gay, you should be able to get along with just two branches of government," said Rep. Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts Democrat.

[Greg_W]

This makes no fucking sense. So instead of allowing the courts to do their job (as the, what do you call it, um, constitution, says) they are going to instead force the courts to overrule this law?

 

I think any 3rd grader could tell you this is unconstituional.

 

"The Republicans have decided that if you are gay, you should be able to get along with just two branches of government," said Rep. Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts Democrat.

 

It's impossible for you to see logic anywhere isn't it? Read Article III; apparently, Congress can suspend the jurisdiction of lower courts. Besides, why do you have a problem with giving authority to the States? The intent was for weak federal government and strong state government when our country was founded.

 

Forget the 3rd grader, YOU can't even argue the constitutionality of this decision.

[cj001f]

It looks like they are returning power to the States, which is where it is supposed to be. Thumbs up.

 

Greg-

My problem is not with returning power to the states. My problem is with creating extrajudicial laws - that, in my mind, is a very dangerous precedent. This law excludes ALL federal courts - including the Supreme Court.

[Lionel_Hutz]

Besides, why do you have a problem with giving authority to the States? The intent was for weak federal government and strong state government when our country was founded.

 

 

 

So I take it that you thought the recent Republican attempt to amend the constitution so as to prohibit same-sex marriage was a bad idea, on account of such decisions should be left to the states?

[cj001f]

It's impossible for you to see logic anywhere isn't it? Read Article III; apparently, Congress can suspend the jurisdiction of lower courts.

 

Congress is suspending jurisdiction of all Federal Courts dipshit.

 

Here's Article 3

Article III

 

Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

 

 

Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

 

 

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

 

 

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.

 

 

Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

 

 

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

[Greg_W]

Besides, why do you have a problem with giving authority to the States? The intent was for weak federal government and strong state government when our country was founded.

 

 

 

So I take it that you thought the recent Republican attempt to amend the constitution so as to prohibit same-sex marriage was a bad idea, on account of such decisions should be left to the states?

 

Yup. As was the whole bullshit Roe v. Wade decision; it's a states-rights issue.

[cj001f]

As was the whole bullshit Roe v. Wade decision; it's a states-rights issue.

 

Regardless of your feelings on the abortion issue, the legal principal behind Roe v. Wade, that you own & control your reproductive rights, I stand by.

[Greg_W]

As was the whole bullshit Roe v. Wade decision; it's a states-rights issue.

 

Regardless of your feelings on the abortion issue, the legal principal behind Roe v. Wade, that you own & control your reproductive rights, I stand by.

 

I set my views on abortion aside and say that it is an issue to be decided by the states, NOT the federal government. I'm not debating abortion, I'm saying the Supreme Court had no business creating legislation (which is what this decision did) by deciding this case. The Constitution talks about very specific jurisdiction of the Federal Government and all other spheres being the jurisdiction of the States; that's where I'm coming from.

 

Besides, at the state level, we're less likely to be taken over by the international Jewish conspiracy

[JoshK]

Greg, re-read it you mouth-breather, it says supreme court as well. That is NOT constitutional no matter how bad your states rights anti-womens right, anti-gay redneck ass wants it to be. I'm also curious why you ignoramouses haven't moved out of the 18th century. states rights is a sorry excuse to allow backwards ass places like mississippi and arizona to restrict rights without care for what the nation thinks. We are one nation last time I checked, not a bunch of post-colonial republics.

[JoshK]

As was the whole bullshit Roe v. Wade decision; it's a states-rights issue.

 

Regardless of your feelings on the abortion issue, the legal principal behind Roe v. Wade, that you own & control your reproductive rights, I stand by.

 

The republicans (and apparently greg) are for smaller govertment (so they say) until something doesn't jive with their fucked up moral system, then they are all for restricting people's rights. How Greg and them think they have the power to restrict a women's right to choose is beyond me.

[Greg_W]

Greg, re-read it you mouth-breather, it says supreme court as well. That is NOT constitutional no matter how bad your states rights anti-womens right, anti-gay redneck ass wants it to be. I'm also curious why you ignoramouses haven't moved out of the 18th century. states rights is a sorry excuse to allow backwards ass places like mississippi and arizona to restrict rights without care for what the nation thinks. We are one nation last time I checked, not a bunch of post-colonial republics.

 

Fundamentally, you are wrong, Josh. We are not "one nation"; we are the "UNITED states". There is a difference and the Framers/Founders knew that. Being a republic made up of individual states with rights and powers was seen as very beneficial in preventing the sort of imperialistic excesses experienced in Britain at the time. It is part of the check and balance in America to avoid excesses of power.

 

Greg_W signing off for the weekend.

 

P.S. You want to trade insults, let's do it in person. If you have balls.

[arlen]

Yup. As was the whole bullshit Roe v. Wade decision; it's a states-rights issue.

 

Hey deep thoughts man: somebody already came up with that basic idea. In addition to waxing aggreloquently about it, they took action. They lost the Civil War, and it's been pretty much settled ever since.

[JoshK]

Yup. As was the whole bullshit Roe v. Wade decision; it's a states-rights issue.

 

Hey deep thoughts man: somebody already came up with that basic idea. In addition to waxing aggreloquently about it, they took action. They lost the Civil War, and it's been pretty much settled ever since.

 

Bingo. I think greg and his friends don't seem to grasp the fact that things have changed in the past 200+ years. There is a reason our federal control was increased significantly following our early military issues. Thankfully we managed to keep things together enough...

[JoshK]

P.S. You want to trade insults, let's do it in person. If you have balls.

 

I prefer a wild west duel if you don't mind. I've always thought that gunplay was a great way to solve verbal arguments.

[cj001f]

P.S. You want to trade insults, let's do it in person. If you have balls.

 

I prefer a wild west duel if you don't mind. I've always thought that gunplay was a great way to solve verbal arguments.

It's all about honor! Well, and pretending to be an internet bully - nothing says Balls like threats of physical violence!

[JoshK]

P.S. You want to trade insults, let's do it in person. If you have balls.

 

I prefer a wild west duel if you don't mind. I've always thought that gunplay was a great way to solve verbal arguments.

It's all about honor! Well, and pretending to be an internet bully - nothing says Balls like threats of physical violence!

 

Nothing gets the chicks like physical violence! In middle school I beat the crap out of some poor kid in the name of chick-getting! I figure if it work in middle school, it'll definitely work in the real world!

[murraysovereign]

We are not "one nation"

 

I Pledge Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America

and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God,

indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

[JoshK]

We are not "one nation"

 

I Pledge Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America

and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God,

indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

 

[Fairweather]

 

Besides, why do you have a problem with giving authority to the States? The intent was for weak federal government and strong state government when our country was founded.

 

 

Unfortunately (or fortunately) the Civil War changed this idea forever. The Republicans are going about this in a bungling manner, and if this law ever passes the senate (which it won't) and gets GW's signature, it will surely be thrown out by the Supreme Court. The backfire from this tactical blunder will possibly usher in full legalization of gay marriage. I don't see any way conservatives can win this fight long-term on current constitutional grounds, and they don't seem to have the votes necessary to ammend....

 

...so here's to you, Adam and Steve... you're probably gunna eventually win this one; and rightfully so. Just remember...tolerance is not acceptance. I still think you are evolutionary dead ends.

[JoshK]

Fairweather...

 

1.)Why is state's rights so important to the right wing? As you said, the civil war changed things forever, and it should have. The country is a much better place than it was before. Should the south have the right to re-institute slavery? I mean, seriously, if they feel it's acceptable, why shouldn't they be able to?

 

2.Why does gay marriage bother the right wing so much? They are people to. Marriage is a religious institution, not a governmental one. Mating is a natural institution, not a governmental one. Change governmental recognition of marriage into a business only deal and let people express themselves religiously and in unity however they want.

[Fairweather]

I believe my post answered your questions. I've never claimed to be 100% pro Republican platform, or 100% conservative...if that can even be defined.

 

Why do most conservatives oppose gay marriage? Much has to do with the "in your face" message and militancy put forth by the gay fringe. Spreading their message via public schools hasn't helped bring right wingers to their cause much either. Local mayors, county commissioners, and city councils trying to promote gay marriage via authority they do not possess simply antagonizes. And it really boils down to what I believe is a natural disdain posessed by the majority of humans toward the act of homosexuality.

 

Conservativism, by its very nature tries to maintain the current (or a past, real or imagined)) social order...and is often, admittedly, ugly. And I believe I've made my position clear on gay marriage; that is, I do not oppose it. But I have to support the side that best represents what I believe on the preponderance of issues, and I'll take conservatives any day over the creeping socialism that is the liberal.

 

Just so you understand: I know you fear the religious Christian right...so do I. But I think you give them more power than they deserve credit for. Each of them posesses only one vote, just like you and I, and they are not presently a danger to our republic. I suspect that most American conservatives base their politics wholly, or at least mostly, on secular idealism.

[JoshK]

Good response, thanks FW. I do agree with the statement that the gay movement can sometimes be in your face. Personally I don't care to see a gay pride bumper sticker. I relate it to me driving around with a "I screw chicks" bumper sticker. It's really not their business or mine. On the other hand, I do think it's that natural disdain they have to be extra vocal to overcome. Back in the day, there was a disdain for other races in this country by a large percentage of the population. The civil rights movement had to be loud and demanding to get their message through. I think the gay movement faces the same uphill battle. I strongly believe it is not the right of the rest of us to look down on them. I have a gay Aunt and several gay friends all of who are incredibly wonderful people. They don't fit the typical gay stereotype, but they obviously still want to push hard for equal rights. It's just how their geneology works...some people end up gay, but most of us do not. What scares me is our country making laws and judgements based on somebody's "morals" about an issue that doesn't effect them. Obviously morals against killing people, raping, etc. are common sense for most sane people. Having the rights of citizens impinged on by somebody's "christian values" is out of whack.

[chirp]

Religion is the worst thing to happen to the human race since the last ice age.