-- "The federal judiciary is working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one (i.e., federalization)"
It's not a compromise which meets the constitutional requirements of
"equal> treatment under the law" - it has nothing to do with what I feel is> adequate.
Just to make sure: this means you are against "affirmative action" programs as well, right?
-- "The federal judiciary is working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one (i.e., federalization)"
Minä suojelen sinua kaikelta, mitä ikinä keksitkin sanoa, StephenJ:>> It's not a compromise which meets the constitutional requirements of> "equal>> treatment under the law" - it has nothing to do with what I feel is>> adequate.
Just to make sure: this means you are against "affirmative action" programs> as well, right?
That doesn't make any sense--why would he be against programs intended to correct unequal treatment under the law simply because he is in favor of equal treatment under the law?
rich
-- -to reply, it's hot not warm +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ \ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett / "Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world; \ than the pride that divides / when a colorful rag is unfurled."
It's not a compromise which meets the constitutional requirements of> > "equal> >> treatment under the law" - it has nothing to do with what I feel is> >> adequate.>
Just to make sure: this means you are against "affirmative action"
programs> > as well, right?>
That doesn't make any sense--why would he be against programs> intended to correct unequal treatment under the law simply> because he is in favor of equal treatment under the law?
? AA programs discriminate on the basis of race/gender, thus they violate "equal treatment under the law".
-- "The federal judiciary is working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one (i.e., federalization)"
rich hammett was cut from the Baylor football team for saying...>>Minä suojelen sinua kaikelta, mitä ikinä keksitkin sanoa, StephenJ:
It's not a compromise which meets the constitutional requirements of>>> "equal treatment under the law" - it has nothing to do with what I feel is>>> adequate.
Just to make sure: this means you are against "affirmative action" programs>> as well, right?
That doesn't make any sense--why would he be against programs>intended to correct unequal treatment under the law simply>because he is in favor of equal treatment under the law?
Because those programs are FAR, FAR MORE "unequal treatment under the law" than simply allowing civil unions to be legally equal to marriages.
It's not even close, frankly.
Trent Chairborne "Nine of Diamonds" Ranger
...To be a great NCO, you need three bones: a backbone, a wishbone and a funny bone.
Minä suojelen sinua kaikelta, mitä ikinä keksitkin sanoa, StephenJ:>> >> It's not a compromise which meets the constitutional requirements of>> > "equal>> >> treatment under the law" - it has nothing to do with what I feel is>> >> adequate.>>
Just to make sure: this means you are against "affirmative action"> programs>> > as well, right?>>
That doesn't make any sense--why would he be against programs>> intended to correct unequal treatment under the law simply>> because he is in favor of equal treatment under the law?
? AA programs discriminate on the basis of race/gender, thus they violate> "equal treatment under the law".
That's moronic. That's just like saying that medicine discriminates against healthy people because it only gives drugs to sick people.
rich -- -to reply, it's hot not warm +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ \ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett / "Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world; \ than the pride that divides / when a colorful rag is unfurled."
That doesn't make any sense--why would he be against programs> >> intended to correct unequal treatment under the law simply> >> because he is in favor of equal treatment under the law?>
? AA programs discriminate on the basis of race/gender, thus they
violate> > "equal treatment under the law".>
That's moronic.
Actually, it's plainly obvious. Only a moron or a hopeless political lefty would deny it. AA programs deny equal protection of the law. That's how they "work". That's the only way they can "work".
The only way your claim about AA programs working to correct unequal treatment before the law could make sense is, say, if a school like Michigan was found guilty of having an admissions process that discriminated against minorities, and therefore AA was being undertaken to correct that. But of course that's nonsense. The only time UM has ever been found guilty of discriminating against anyone in their admissions programs was in 1992 and in 2003 - when courts ruled their AA programs discriminated against white people. LOL.
The UM admins who fought to be allowed to have their AA programs didn't even bother to try and say they had. They based their argument on the desire for a "diverse" student body.
That's just like saying that medicine> discriminates against healthy people because it only> gives drugs to sick people.
LOL. you're desperate. No one seeks legal access to restricted drugs when they are healthy, so eg the fact that i don't have access to AZT when i don't have HIV is meaningless to me. But anyone who applies to a university by definition wants to get in. If they are discriminated against in the process, that is meaningful to them.
-- "The federal judiciary is working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one (i.e., federalization)"
What?? Civil unions as a compromise...works for me. Get rid of >> >government recognition of church marriages...there's your compromise. >> >All are treated equally in the public eye.>>
Better still, eliminate queers and there will be no need for>> compromise.>
But I thought guys who ran around in crewcuts>and fatigues were queers, Hugh.
I rarely see evidence that what you think matters to anyone except other deluded liberals.
Back in the 40s you wouldn't have mentioned that to the crewcuts I knew - including me.
StephenJ <cjones@corpus.com> wrote:>> It's not a compromise which meets the constitutional requirements of> "equal>> treatment under the law" - it has nothing to do with what I feel is>> adequate.>
Just to make sure: this means you are against "affirmative action" programs> as well, right?
I believe Affirmative Action laws which amount to unequal representation under the law are unConstitutional.
aborgman@redshark.goodshow.net wrote:>> Trevor Zion Bauknight <trev@sc.edu> wrote:>> >
Government should be involved in recognizing civil unions for>> > contractual and rights purposes, and that's it>>
IAWTP^10>>
-->> Aaron>
IAWTP. Also, get rid of religious tax-exempt status.
Yep... Churches get no tax breaks. They are a non-profit corporation, or a for-profit corporation (their choice) and must follow all rules, laws, and tax regulations that apply.
Just to make sure: this means you are against "affirmative action"
programs> > as well, right?>
I believe Affirmative Action laws which amount to unequal representation> under the law are unConstitutional.
er, what the heck does that mean? (i.e., what is "unequal representation under the law").
-- "The federal judiciary is working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one (i.e., federalization)"
Trevor Zion Bauknight 7 April 2005 18:19:13 [ permanent link ]
In article <42553499.6033615@news1.news.adelphia.net>, sull@adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote:
I think maybe you're just a pathetic old man. It's just a perception > >and may be wrong.>
pa•thet•ic \pe-"the-tik\ adj : evoking tenderness, pity, or sorrow > (c)2000 Zane Publishing, Inc. and Merriam-Webster, Incorporated. All> rights reserved
Never far away, is it?
-- Trev
"Every Democratic Senator is to the right of Kerry..including Kucinich." - C. Beauchamp
J. Hugh Sullivan 7 April 2005 21:30:29 [ permanent link ]
On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 14:19:13 GMT, Trevor Zion Bauknight <trev@sc.edu> wrote:
In article <42553499.6033615@news1.news.adelphia.net>,> sull@adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote:>
I think maybe you're just a pathetic old man. It's just a perception >> >and may be wrong.>>
pa•thet•ic \pe-"the-tik\ adj : evoking tenderness, pity, or sorrow >> (c)2000 Zane Publishing, Inc. and Merriam-Webster, Incorporated. All>> rights reserved>
Never far away, is it?
Nope. It comes in very handy with people like you who rarely know what they are talking about because they don't know the meaning of words.
I believe Affirmative Action laws which amount to unequal
representation> >> under the law are unConstitutional.> >
er, what the heck does that mean? (i.e., what is "unequal representation> > under the law").>
Whatever the federal courts determine it to be - it is after all their job> to interpret the constitution.
So if the federal courts determine that the "compromise" of civil unions for gays but "marriage" for straights *does*, contrary to your current belief, meet the constitutional requirements of equal treatment under the law, then you'll say "well, i thought civil unions doesn't meet the equal treatment requirement, but since justices scalia and thomas et al. say it does, i was wrong about that "...?
-- "The federal judiciary is working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one (i.e., federalization)"
StephenJ <cjones@corpus.com> wrote:>> >> I believe Affirmative Action laws which amount to unequal> representation>> >> under the law are unConstitutional.>> >
er, what the heck does that mean? (i.e., what is "unequal representation>> > under the law").>>
Whatever the federal courts determine it to be - it is after all their job>> to interpret the constitution.>
So if the federal courts determine that the "compromise" of civil unions for> gays but "marriage" for straights *does*, contrary to your current belief,> meet the constitutional requirements of equal treatment under the law, then> you'll say "well, i thought civil unions doesn't meet the equal treatment> requirement, but since justices scalia and thomas et al. say it does, i was> wrong about that "...?
Yes. Because as soon as they rule that it does meet the constitutional requirements of equal treatment under the law it DOES meet the constitutional requirements of equal treatment under the law. Such a decision would be drastically against past precedent respecting "equal treatment under the law", but it wouldn't be the first time the courts have gone against precedence.
So if the federal courts determine that the "compromise" of civil unions
gays but "marriage" for straights *does*, contrary to your current
belief,> > meet the constitutional requirements of equal treatment under the law, then> > you'll say "well, i thought civil unions doesn't meet the equal treatment> > requirement, but since justices scalia and thomas et al. say it does, i
wrong about that "...?>
Yes.
Ok, fair enough.
Because as soon as they rule that it does meet the constitutional> requirements of equal treatment under the law it DOES meet the
constitutional> requirements of equal treatment under the law.
In a "what opinion is going to prevail as the rule that governs our society" sense, no doubt. The judges' opinion becomes law, yours or minde doesn't. But i thought we were offering our own opinions here. If not, there's really no point in us arguing this or any other constitutional issue. We'd all just sit back and say "well, the judges are going to say what the constitution is and we're all going to agree with that so there's nothing to talk about"...
-- "The federal judiciary is working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one (i.e., federalization)"
J. Hugh Sullivan 8 April 2005 04:48:10 [ permanent link ]
On 7 Apr 2005 20:06:52 GMT, <aborgman@redshark.goodshow.net> wrote:
J. Hugh Sullivan <sull@adelphia.net> wrote:>> On 7 Apr 2005 15:13:15 GMT, <aborgman@redshark.goodshow.net> wrote:>>
StephenJ <cjones@corpus.com> wrote:>>>>> > Just to make sure: this means you are against "affirmative action">>>> programs>>>>> > as well, right?>>>>>
I believe Affirmative Action laws which amount to unequal representation>>>>> under the law are unConstitutional.>>>>
er, what the heck does that mean? (i.e., what is "unequal representation>>>> under the law").>>>
Whatever the federal courts determine it to be - it is after all their job>>>to interpret the constitution.>>>
-- >>>Aaron>>
...but it's not their job to rewrite the Constitution which is what>> many judges have done lately. >
Sure Hugh... their job is to interpret the constitution. When you like their>interpretation they're following it, when you don't they're rewriting it. >
-- >Aaron
No when I don't like it I mention it. When others don't like what I like I expect them to speak their piece. They couldn't afford me to do it for them.
Trevor Zion Bauknight 8 April 2005 18:33:35 [ permanent link ]
In article <4255d41c.32965211@news1.news.adelphia.net>, sull@adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote:
...but it's not their job to rewrite the Constitution which is what> >> many judges have done lately. > >
Please post the text that has been added to the Constitution by these > >activist judges. Thanks.>
See various recent legal decisions re the TC and AA.
I want to see the text added to the Constitution, or the text of the Constitution that was changed. I know about judicial interpretation; but I'm interested in judicial *rewriting* of the Constitution. Put up or shut up.
-- Trev
"Every Democratic Senator is to the right of Kerry..including Kucinich." - C. Beauchamp
J. Hugh Sullivan 8 April 2005 19:15:17 [ permanent link ]
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 14:33:35 GMT, Trevor Zion Bauknight <trev@sc.edu> wrote:
In article <4255d41c.32965211@news1.news.adelphia.net>,> sull@adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote:>
...but it's not their job to rewrite the Constitution which is what>> >> many judges have done lately. >> >
Please post the text that has been added to the Constitution by these >> >activist judges. Thanks.>>
See various recent legal decisions re the TC and AA.>
I want to see the text added to the Constitution, or the text of the >Constitution that was changed. I know about judicial interpretation; >but I'm interested in judicial *rewriting* of the Constitution. Put up >or shut up.
Judges have circumvented the method of rewriting the Constitution by amendment to rewriting it by judicial edict. Effectively their interpretations "rewrite" the Constitution the same as it it were amended or text added. Judicial Decision = Law and Constitution = Law - ergo Judicial Decision = Constitution.
The perfect example is "Congress shall make no law..." in Amendment I. Fedreal judges have usurped Congress and made a law re religion. That's rewriting the Constitution whether or not you agree.
Since the dictionary is alien to you, no law means no law. Get help if you don't understand the principle of freedom.
Trevor Zion Bauknight 8 April 2005 20:28:55 [ permanent link ]
In article <42569e09.12029727@news1.news.adelphia.net>, sull@adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote:
The perfect example is "Congress shall make no law..." in Amendment I.> Fedreal judges have usurped Congress and made a law re religion.> That's rewriting the Constitution whether or not you agree.
What is the text of that law? What are its provisions?
-- Trev
"Every Democratic Senator is to the right of Kerry..including Kucinich." - C. Beauchamp
In article <42569e09.12029727@news1.news.adelphia.net>,> sull@adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote:>
The perfect example is "Congress shall make no law..." in Amendment I.>>Fedreal judges have usurped Congress and made a law re religion.>>That's rewriting the Constitution whether or not you agree.>>
What is the text of that law? What are its provisions?>
So, if the Constitution says "Congress shall make no law" and the judges do, they've added to the constitution?
