This is TOO much!

[archenemy]

I am also glad that the stripper thing didn't pass. What is truly absurd is wasting tax payer money and police resources to ensure that some old guy doesn't get a lap dance.

[tvashtarkatena]

It's too bad Reagan's motorcade didn't run you over.

 

Mom didn't let us lie down in the street in front of motorcades when I was in fourth grade.

Edited November 8, 2006 by tvashtarkatena

[ClimbingPanther]

The scientific or social basis for homosexuality, while interesting, should have no bearing on public policy. The constitution doesn't care whether nature or nurture is at work.

 

I tend to disagree with this philosophy. There's no discussion (except among the KKK maybe) that intrinsic properties of a human being which make them different (race, disability, gender, etc.) cannot be discriminated against constitutionally. However, actions are certainly upheld or prohibited in the constitution and laws alike. It's the very nature of laws to regulate actions. All men (and women) are created equal, not all actions. However, many choices are left up to the citizen, such as whether or not to own a gun and whether or not to speak. Those liberties are expressly preserved as a choice for each citizen to make.

 

Does the constitution grant liberty (expressly or implied) to marry someone of the same sex? I don't know. Input on this issue would be interesting.

 

However, if liberty is not granted, I think it's status as an intrinsic property or an action is fundamental to the constitutional stance on homosexuality.

[tvashtarkatena]

I am also glad that the stripper thing didn't pass. What is truly absurd is wasting tax payer money and police resources to ensure that some old guy doesn't get a lap dance.

 

Oh, thanks. I love you, too.

[archenemy]

I consider 80 old. So if you are 79 or less, you're golden.

[Doug]

The only “person” who can judge a sin in Christianity is God.

 

So only God can just that murder is a sin? Absurd.

 

Uh, we don't convict people of sins, we convict them of crimes. I believe there is a difference. Depending on your beliefs or non beliefs, the judgement of sins will come at the appropriate time.

[tvashtarkatena]

The scientific or social basis for homosexuality, while interesting, should have no bearing on public policy. The constitution doesn't care whether nature or nurture is at work.

 

However, if liberty is not granted, I think it's status as an intrinsic property or an action is fundamental to the constitutional stance on homosexuality.

 

Perhaps. Our constitution provides self evident rights, however. I.e, the government does not 'grant' rights; we already have them, and it must provide a compelling reason to revoke or deny them. So far, the government has provided no compelling reason to deny gays the right to marry, which is, at best, central to the pursuit of happiness for much of that large segment of our population, and, at worst, an utterly victimless act. Indirect offense to, say, religious organizations from such a practice has not constituted a legal harm in the past.

[tvashtarkatena]

Depending on your beliefs or non beliefs, the judgement of sins will come at the appropriate time.

 

Hopefully never in my case.

[archenemy]

They sure found it easy to deny self-evident rights to women for a very, very long time. It is unfortunate that in practise, the gov't mostly ensures that those already in power retain that control.

 

And although ideally we already have rights, the sad truth is that people usually only have the rights they have fought for and taken.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

It is unfortunate that in practise, the gov't mostly ensures that those already in power retain that control.

 

Amen. I think the best thing would be to toss out EVERY incumbent at every election for a few cycles - until they get the point that the electorate grants them power, and they need to get that through their thick skulls.

[archenemy]

The scientific or social basis for homosexuality, while interesting, should have no bearing on public policy. The constitution doesn't care whether nature or nurture is at work.

 

However, if liberty is not granted, I think it's status as an intrinsic property or an action is fundamental to the constitutional stance on homosexuality.

 

Perhaps. Our constitution provides self evident rights, however. I.e, the government does not 'grant' rights; we already have them, and it must provide a compelling reason to revoke or deny them. So far, the government has provided no compelling reason to deny gays the right to marry, which is, at best, central to the pursuit of happiness for much of that large segment of our population, and, at worst, an utterly victimless act. Indirect offense to, say, religious organizations from such a practice has not constituted a legal harm in the past.

 

BTW: not to split hairs, but our Constitution does not grant us any rights; mostly it defines our government.

[cj001f]

It is unfortunate that in practise, the gov't mostly ensures that those already in power retain that control.

 

Amen. I think the best thing would be to toss out EVERY incumbent at every election for a few cycles - until they get the point that the electorate grants them power, and they need to get that through their thick skulls.

 

Government reform would be more effective - make the processes transparent and simple enough so there is minimal advantage for the incumbent.

[archenemy]

It is unfortunate that in practise, the gov't mostly ensures that those already in power retain that control.

 

Amen. I think the best thing would be to toss out EVERY incumbent at every election for a few cycles - until they get the point that the electorate grants them power, and they need to get that through their thick skulls.

Agreed. It is our duty to purge the gov't when it has reached tyrannical levels.

[tvashtarkatena]

They sure found it easy to deny self-evident rights to women for a very, very long time. It is unfortunate that in practise, the gov't mostly ensures that those already in power retain that control.

 

And slaves, and native Americans, and Japanese Americans, and drinkers, for that matter. No doubt there is an ugly historical disconnect between our behavior and the full potential of the constitution. The supreme court has typically gone along with the 'tyranny of the majority' rather than enforcing the rights supposedly guaranteed by that document.

 

And that is the salient point. The policies of slavery, male only voting, and Jim Crow laws survived because a majority of voters at the time supported them. When voters changed their attitudes, those policies went by the wayside. It's not 'those in power' that maintain unjust policies...it's us. We get the government we deserve.

 

Guantanamo Bay, torture, and gay marriage bans are just the latest versions of this tyranny of the majority. These policies survive only because we continue to support them.

 

But...we've made enormous progress towards realizing the full potential of the constitution. I believe we'll continue to do so, with the inevitable hitches along the way.

Edited November 8, 2006 by tvashtarkatena

[KaskadskyjKozak]

It is unfortunate that in practise, the gov't mostly ensures that those already in power retain that control.

 

Amen. I think the best thing would be to toss out EVERY incumbent at every election for a few cycles - until they get the point that the electorate grants them power, and they need to get that through their thick skulls.

 

Government reform would be more effective - make the processes transparent and simple enough so there is minimal advantage for the incumbent.

 

Speaking of reform, we need to get rid of lobbyists. All of them. McCain et al made a start, but it seems to have fallen flat (they just found ways around the legislation).

[archenemy]

They sure found it easy to deny self-evident rights to women for a very, very long time. It is unfortunate that in practise, the gov't mostly ensures that those already in power retain that control.

 

And slaves, and native Americans, and Japanese Americans, and drinkers, for that matter. No doubt there is an ugly historical disconnect between our behavior and the full potential of the constitution. The supreme court has typically gone along with the 'tyranny of the majority' rather than enforcing the rights supposedly guaranteed by that document.

 

And that is the salient point. The policies of slavery, male only voting, and Jim Crow laws survived because a majority of voters at the time supported them. When voters changed their attitudes, those policies went by the wayside. It's not 'those in power' that maintain unjust policies...it's us. We get the government we deserve.

 

Guantanamo Bay, torture, and gay marriage bans are just the latest versions of this tyranny of the majority. These policies survive only because we continue to support them.

 

But...we've made enormous progress towards realizing the full potential of that document.

This was not tyranny of the majority as white men were not in the majority at these times, nor are they now. This is about power, not numbers.

[tvashtarkatena]

Our constitution provides self evident rights, however. I.e, the government does not 'grant' rights; we already have them, and it must provide a compelling reason to revoke or deny them.

 

BTW: not to split hairs, but our Constitution does not grant us any rights; mostly it defines our government.

 

What I said.

[archenemy]

Yes, and the discussion keeps bringing up rights and Constitution. I am agreeing with you. I just think it's easy for folks (not you personally) to forget the their rights are outlined in a different document.

[tvashtarkatena]

I think the best thing would be to toss out EVERY incumbent at every election for a few cycles - until they get the point that the electorate grants them power, and they need to get that through their thick skulls.

 

I think they just got that point yesterday loud and clear.

I'm against term limits because they limit my right to vote for who I want. If someone's doing a great job, I want the choice of voting to keep them in that job.

[tvashtarkatena]

I am agreeing with you.

 

Someone's agreeing with me? I'm framing this post...

[archenemy]

And that is the salient point. The policies of slavery, male only voting, and Jim Crow laws survived because a majority of voters at the time supported them. When voters changed their attitudes, those policies went by the wayside. It's not 'those in power' that maintain unjust policies...it's us. We

this sounds a bit cyclical to me. Of course the majority of voters support not allowing blacks or women to vote when the majority of voters (all the voters as a matter of fact) are neither black nor female. It is not "us" when the "us" pool was that limited. Are you saying that blacks and women deserved to remain in servitude because they didn't have the right attitude? Of course not. None of these policies went by the wayside, they were battled out for years.

 

Rights are never granted, they are only taken.

Edited November 9, 2006 by archenemy

[archenemy]

I am agreeing with you.

 

Someone's agreeing with me? I'm framing this post...

Did I spell agreeing right? I would be embarrassed if you framed this and I spelled it wrong.

[Recycled]

Unfortunately, higher turnover of electeds = more power for staff and lobbyists. There is virtually no way for a single person to read 500 page bills, do research on intended and unintended impacts, check in with constituents and do what it takes to get re-elected. Staff end up driving decisions, with helpful advice from lobbyists "stakeholders." The elected just ends up asking people he trusts whether the bill is good or not.

 

I've met quite a few thoughtful elected officials that ask good questions and think about their decisions. I've also met a lot of duds. I have not noticed a correlation between length of tenure and quality of electeds.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I think they just got that point yesterday loud and clear.

I'm against term limits because they limit my right to vote for who I want. If someone's doing a great job, I want the choice of voting to keep them in that job.

 

1) I'm afraid that they did not get *that* point. There are plenty of representatives that are in "secure" districts who would have to f*** up really bad to even have a chance of losing. Did you see the election results for McDermott? He could rape horses in Enumclaw and still get elected. Ditto for quite a few "safe" Rep districts. The majority of them in fact.

2) nobody said anything about legislative term limits - just voter initiated ones (for a while)

[tvashtarkatena]

Speaking of reform, we need to get rid of lobbyists. All of them.

 

This is a knee jerk suggestion from someone who obviously has little experience working with any organization with a national footprint.

 

Lobbyists are essential for a non-governmental to know what is happening in the legislature and represent their constituents effectively. They are an important way for the members of any organization to stay in touch with what their legislators are up to, which, in my book, is a very good thing. They help achieve the 'transparency' people like you so loudly call for.

 

If you wanted the environment protected, who would you give money to:

 

Earth First! (no lobbyists, jailed activists, virtually no public support, little money, kno real legislative action network)

 

Ducks Unlimited or the Sierra Club (Lobbyists, broad public support, lots of money, effective legislative action networks).

 

Sure, there are corrupt lobbyists, just like there are corrupt legislators. The solution is not to get rid of lobbyists, which are such an important part of being heard in government, but to implement strict rules against corruption, whether by lobbyists, legislators, or anyone else.