Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > California  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 934
view profile
History
Prop 8 Page 17 of 52    (12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52)

According to Mr. Jefferson, states have to right to nullify unconstitutional laws.


He also famously said that a little revolution now and then isn't a bad thing. I'd like to see just what Mr. Obama would do about it if one or more states ignored a federal law or decision of the Court as unconstitutional interference with their rights. When Governor Faubus of Arkansas threatened to defy a Supreme Court decision that required a black student to be admitted to one of its high schools in 1957, President Eisenhower sent troops from the 101st Airborne to enforce it. Imagine Obama doing that--he probably couldn't be sure they'd obey him.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 935
view profile
History
Prop 8
Posted: 8/8/2010 2:37:05 PM

You completely contradicted yourself from one sentence to the next.


Skoochie, if you say I did, I know that must be true. How's this: How dare those states try to claim they have any right to pass laws, when the 14th Am. says they can't do anything a gay federal judge doesn't like!
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 936
view profile
History
Prop 8
Posted: 8/8/2010 6:02:43 PM

do you think Eisenhowers actions violated the Posse Comitatus Act?


PH, I don't claim to be an expert on that law, but I know so many exceptions have been carved out of it that some experts think it's almost a dead letter. And I'm sure it was on its way to that even in 1957. Eisenhower had the best legal experts to advise him, so I doubt he would have done it unless at least a good case could have been made for it. And, too, he was enforcing the Court's authority--so it would hardly have called it against him.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 937
view profile
History
Prop 8
Posted: 8/8/2010 7:42:50 PM

What would it take for a SCOTUS justice to get impeached? That is the only remedy


That's one remedy, for sure, but it might be very hard to do. No one knows if FDR's court-packing scheme would have had the result he wanted if it had been put in practice, but just threatening to do that seems to have been pretty effective. The Court quickly started rolling over for all kinds of federal intervention. And with a few exceptions, it's never stopped in the eighty-four years since then. To make things worse, it doesn't just expand central control when a president wants to--it does it all by itself.

I like Judge Bork's idea--amend the Constitution to allow a majority vote of both Houses of Congress to overrule the Court's decisions. That would probably have to be done within so many years, because it's awfully disruptive once the law's gotten well established. A couple of the Court's decisions on Guantanamo would have been great candidates.

Several Justices arrogantly made their personal sympathy for Islamic jihadists the law by grossly interfering with *both* other branches' efforts to make war on them. During our whole history, the Court had only done anything like that once, during the Korean War. And many people have certainly been killed as a result of this outrage against the Constitution. Yet the press uniformly--and falsely--reported it as a noble, courageous rebuff to President Bush's abuse of *his* power. With friends like that, we don't need enemies.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 940
Prop 8
Posted: 8/10/2010 1:21:23 PM

According to Mr. Jefferson, states have to right to nullify unconstitutional laws.


Sounds good to me. What is the procedure through which such nullifications can be carried out? Apparently, secession from the Union wasn't it.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 941
Prop 8
Posted: 8/10/2010 1:24:20 PM

fear was that over time the federal govt would accumulate power and subjugate the States. Even the limited powers conferred to the federal govt put the States at a disadvantage which over time would diminish their status.


No, we ceded power over to the Federal Government when we voted for the income tax. With that much money at its disposal, an amount far in excess of that of all the states put together I'm sure, it was just a matter of time. Our great grandparents were idiots for giving the Feds the means.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 942
view profile
History
Prop 8
Posted: 8/10/2010 2:17:32 PM

If they amend the 14th Amendment to state that one must be born of a legal resident of this country, to become a citizen, what is the harm of that?


The short version is that that's not necessary to do away with the "anchor baby" provision. Congress could just enact a law to make clear that just being born in the U.S., by itself, does not make anyone "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S. And the 14th Am. requires that for citizenship. I'll give the long version when I get time.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 943
view profile
History
Prop 8
Posted: 8/10/2010 3:46:54 PM
^^^^Congress has always had every right to exclude anyone it chooses, for just about any reason it likes. The Court has made clear there's no area where it defers more strongly to Congress than in matters of alienage. Aliens who have never yet entered the U.S. have no rights under the U.S. Constitution whatsoever, and they never have had.

I'm not surprised someone turned up Wong Kim Ark. In that decision, which involved the Chinese Exclusion Act:

Justice Horace Gray, writing for the Court, held that "a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who at the time of his birth were subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States," was, merely by virtue of his birth in the United States, a citizen of the United States as a result of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The rest of this very fine article by Professor John Eastman explains why Gray--who in Wong Kim Ark reversed the position on this matter he'd taken in an earlier case and ignored the Court's own interpretation of the Citizenship Clause-- was dead wrong and should not be followed today.

Here is the link, for anyone who's feeling ambitious. The article's a little complex, but very clearly written.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2006/03/From-Feudalism-to-Consent-Rethinking-Birthright-Citizenship
 Delete_Me_Please
Joined: 11/10/2009
Msg: 945
Prop 8
Posted: 8/10/2010 5:52:25 PM

Could it be that you're unsure of your position, and so you want to restrict the discussion to people who can't back up what they say any better than you can?

I'm neither unsure of my position nor inconsistent. My position is equality for ALL.


I can tell you've really studied its history in detail, and I just can't seem to figure it out.

The history of it doesn't change what the actual text says. THAT'S what matters.



whites are outnumbered by other races. So how would you feel if the other groups decided to join forces and vote away some of the white man's rights?

Have I been missing out on some special rights?


As a white man, nope, not a single one. But for the people making the ridiculous argument that the vote of the majority should prevail regardless of how it discriminates against a segment of society, I was providing an example for them to consider if they'd feel the same way if the tables were turned and their rights were in jeopardy.


But liberals are tolerant and loving of all. If that were true you would not be insulting others here merely because their opinions differ from yours.

Who ever claimed that liberals are "tolerant and loving of all"? Regardless, I think there's a huge difference between showing tolerance toward a group who simply share a particular characteristic and declining tolerance toward an individual within that group who may be a jackass.


Some of the conservative arguments are brilliant.

Since none of those brilliant arguments have been brought to this thread, I'd love to hear what they are.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 948
view profile
History
Prop 8
Posted: 8/10/2010 6:08:33 PM
^^^^^I'm reminded of a mock TV ad someone sent me. It's for some brand of condom that's pitched at the discriminating jihadist. When these brave warriors take a break from poisoning dogs, murdering innocent kids, and stoning women to death by engaging in some unnatural dalliance with one goat or another, this fine product claims to let them be confident they're playing safely. Funny as he!!. Which is where they'll all be very soon, with any luck, buggering each other for the Devil's amusement.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 950
view profile
History
Prop 8
Posted: 8/10/2010 6:32:16 PM

My position is equality for ALL.


I see from your well-chosen use of the caps key that you, too, support the criminal liberation movement. Oh, the sleepless nights I've spent, knowing how this mean, vicious, redneck country I'm unfortunately a part of continues to discriminate against murderers, rapists, arsonists, robbers, and other felons! What about *their* rights? We'll never have true equality for ALL, as our constatuton requires, as long as we keep persecuting these poor people. We should start by setting them all free, right away.


The history of it doesn't change what the actual text says. THAT'S what matters.


Thank you so much for your brilliant legal analysis of the Fourteenth Amendment. If only I'd realized it was all so simple. I sure learned something, and I'll bet most other people who read it did, too. I only hope we can count on you to keep showing us just what ignorance, intolerance, and bigotry can lead to.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 951
view profile
History
Prop 8
Posted: 8/10/2010 7:06:47 PM

the Bible has never been misconstrued to say Christians are tolerant of gays.


Yes, Paul's all wet. It's well known that most Christians in the U.S. are in favor of killing homosexuals, just like shariah calls for good Muslims to do. And they try all the time. Is there really anyone who's never seen a self-righteous congregation spill out of the church doors on a Sunday, all fired up to go get their clubs and tire irons and fan out through the neighborhood in groups on what they call a "homo hunt"?

It's a regular occurrence at the churches around here. The cops know all about it, but as long as no one's actually murdered, they look the other way. Once, I was out for a Sunday walk and heard a commotion across the street. As I came around the curve, I saw a group of these Christian thugs stomping some unlucky sodomite right in his own front yard. I noticed a sweet-looking old lady was taking in the spectacle from her porch, waving a little cross as she laughed and cheered. But worse, I could see a uniformed cop standing right there next to the mob, just watching! And as I passed by, I'll never forget what he yelled: "Kick him once for Jesus, guys!!"
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 953
view profile
History
Prop 8
Posted: 8/10/2010 9:14:35 PM
^^^^What Judge Napolitano is leaving out is that the Supreme Court had said exactly the opposite not long before in two other decisions. The fact the Court grossly misinterpreted the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Am. in one decision from the 1890's is not an adequate reason to continue the mistake.

Congress has plenary power to decide matters of alienage, and the Court should defer to it very strongly, as it almost always has on that subject. No one but the Court itself ever gave it the last word on what everything in the Constitution means. The Constitution certainly doesn't give it that power. The idea that it has it is something the Court itself created and has succeeded in making a lot of people believe.

The article I linked to explains in detail how Congress could change this provision. The article also explains why this change would be completely consistent with the Wong decision Napolitano's referring to.

The claim that being born in the U.S., by itself, makes a person "subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S."--in the only sense the 14th Am. can have meant that phrase which makes any sense--is just false. Napolitano's claim that there's no way to "get around" the 14th Amendment is silly. No one's suggesting getting around anything, but rather making clear what "subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S." means as a requirement for U.S. citizenship.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 954
view profile
History
Prop 8
Posted: 8/10/2010 9:25:24 PM

with only one case adding the caveat that children born to LEGAL permanent residents of the U.S., gainfully employed, and who were not employed by a foreign government


That's a very good point about the Wong decision, and I'm glad you mentioned it. It did not involve aliens who were not legal residents of the U.S. or had some remaining connection to another nation.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 956
view profile
History
Prop 8
Posted: 8/10/2010 10:05:28 PM
^^^^^That's true. And Chief Justice Roger Taney, who wrote Dred Scott v. Sandford, was very much a Southerner. The people who wrote the 14th Am. were also adding to the Civil Rights Act of 1866--a lot of the language is similar. They wanted to make very sure the spirit of Dred Scott, which had played a big role in starting the Civil War that had just torn the country in two and almost finished it for good, was completely snuffed out. The Citizenship Clause directly overturns one of the holdings in Dred Scott--that as a former slave, he was not a citizen of the state he lived in. And other sections of the 14th Am., about limits on the rights of ex-Confederates, show what it was aimed at.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 957
view profile
History
Prop 8
Posted: 8/11/2010 11:03:58 AM

The New York Imam not wanting to denounce Hamas, and it got to asking this guy if he himself disproved of Hamas, and after being asked more than 5 times, he would not answer.


For good reason. Hamas is the Muslim Brotherhood's organization in Gaza. It created Hamas. That same MB, through a series of front groups it set up here to subvert America and destroy it from within, is behind this Ground Zero mosque project.

The MB was behind the Beta version of 9/11, in which Abdel Rahman, the "Blind Sheikh," directed a terrorist cell. On Feb. 26, 1993, some of the conspirators in this cell set off a 1,200-lb. bomb in a van parked beneath the World Trade Center. Rahman was also plotting with a Sudanese jihadist, Siddig Ali, to blow up the UN building and the Holland and Lincoln tunnels.

The man who designed and built this bomb, Ramzi Yousef, was a close friend of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who's usually considered the mastermind of 9/11. (KSM, who was a pilot, credits Yousef with coming up with the idea of diving airliners onto large buildings in the U.S. when they were in working together on another plot in Manila in 1994.)

The Muslim Brotherhood directed the assassination of Anwar Sadat when he was president of Egypt, and it tried to assassinate current president Hosni Mubarak. The MB also produced Ayman Zawahiri, the Egyptian doctor who co-founded Al Qaeda about 1992 with Osama Bin Laden.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 959
view profile
History
Prop 8
Posted: 8/11/2010 12:34:33 PM
^^^^^^Our government evidently thinks sucking up to Muslim fanatics is such a good idea that it's spending our tax dollars (illegally, but who cares?) to help the process along:


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/aug/10/tax-dollars-to-build-mosques/
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 962
view profile
History
Prop 8
Posted: 8/12/2010 10:11:20 AM
The Muslim Brotherhood, which the U.S. has designated a terrorist organization, is an Islamist group founded in Egypt by Hasan al-Banna in 1928. Al-Banna wrote that "it is the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated, to impose its law on all nations and to extend its power to the entire planet.” Hamas, which like the MB is dedicated to jihad (and to exterminating Jews) is its branch in Palestine.

Imam Reisal Rauf, the public face of the "Cordoba Initiative" to build the "Muslim Center" near Ground Zero, is thoroughly involved with the MB through several of the front groups it's established in the U.S. It's not surprising he won't denounce Hamas. Two of these fronts, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT), recently published Rauf's book.

The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) is usually considered moderate. It's another MB front group, as is the Islamic Association of Palestine (IAP). The Justice Dept. named them both as unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation case, in which several defendants were convicted of funding Hamas with millions of dollars. Nihad Awad, another prominent supporter of the Ground Zero mosque, is one of CAIR's founders and also a top official in the IAP.

In 1991, the MB's American leadership prepared an internal memo for an upcoming conference. This memo describes the mission of the MB in North America as:

"a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and 'sabotaging' its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions."


These are just a few of the facts about what's really behind the Ground Zero mosque project. There's a lot more we know already. And that makes me wonder about the motives of people who support this outrage--starting with the mayor. Can they really be that willfully ignorant? If NAMBLA wanted to open a "center for the advancement of man-boy love" a few blocks from an elementary school, would everyone just have to shut up and like it, in the name of protecting the rights of NAMBLA members to freedom of expression and association?

Proposing this "Muslim center" isn't just spitting in the face of New Yorkers--it's spitting in the face of all Americans. There are good reasons to think leftists who hate the U.S. and Western culture as much as Islamists do are helping them to sabotage this country. The fact so many people are so eager to kiss the backsides of the lousy mutts behind this insult just adds to them.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 963
view profile
History
Prop 8
Posted: 8/12/2010 10:59:44 PM

Can you name a time where Democrats granted amnesty? They've had power for a while now. No bill has been brought forth. Still no serious discussion about a bill on the horizon.


You put your finger right on the problem. This president doesn't need bills. He doesn't bother with little details like the law. He just sues Arizona, gets a judge to take his side, and presto--amnesty--in fact, if not by law. And whether most Americans want it, or not. Saves all that fuss and muss of the legal process.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 964
view profile
History
Prop 8
Posted: 8/13/2010 10:45:47 AM
^^^^^This president wouldn't be much of an Alinskyite if he didn't know he had to do enough about the border to make it look like an honest effort. And even is he *is* doing more about it than Bush did--which was next to nothing--that's no great accomplishment. What counts is that he refuses to do his duty to enforce federal immigration laws. He sued Arizona to prevent *it* from doing that, either.

Congress has already passed all those laws, and other presidents have signed them. Like all duly enacted federal laws, they represent the will of the majority of Americans as best we can determine it. And Congress has made clear, several times, that it wants states to help enforce those laws. What Judge Bolton held, in effect, was that none of this matters.

Bolton really didn't strike down several sections of the Arizona law for conflicting with federal immigration laws themselves. The problem was that they conflict with Mr. Obama's policy of not enforcing those laws. Her decision supports lawlessness, rather than the law. Its message is that our immigration laws are worth no more than a president says they're worth.

Failing to enforce those laws has just the same effect, in practice, as granting amnesty to the fifteen million or more illegal aliens now in the U.S. It's just a way to dress up a scheme to create millions of new Democratic voters--while badly damaging this country--so that it looks like a noble attempt to uphold the Constitution.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 965
view profile
History
Prop 8
Posted: 8/13/2010 11:58:35 AM
As to Prop. 8, it now comes out that Judge Walker, in his decree, never even mentioned a Supreme Court decision whose authority the law required him to follow.


"In Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810 (1972), the Supreme Court unanimously dismissed, 'for want of [a] substantial federal question,' an appeal from the Minnesota Supreme Court presenting the same questions at issue here: whether a State’s refusal to authorize same-sex marriage violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The same-sex couple in Baker [relied mainly on] on Loving v. Virginia . . . The Baker Court’s dismissal was a decision on the merits that is binding on lower courts on the issues presented and necessarily decided . . . and its value [as legal precedent] 'extends beyond the facts of the particular case to all similar cases.' Plaintiffs’ claims are the same as those rejected in Baker, and the district court’s decision thus conflicts with a binding Supreme Court authority."


Judge Walker apparently thought the Supreme Court's 2003 decision in Lawrence v. Texas allowed him to ignore Baker. But here's the problem with that: Only the Court itself can decide not to follow one of its earlier decisions. Lower federal courts are legally bound by those decisions unless and until the Court changes them.

It's true that Justice Scalia, in his dissent in Lawrence, argued that *if* the logic of the majority in that case were extended to marriage, it would lead to inventing a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. But the Court never did that in Lawrence. In fact it specifically said the case did “not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter.”

Nothing gave Judge Walker a valid reason to ignore the Baker decision in a case involving the very same issue. The reasoning behind Lawrence, the Court's most relevant later decision, led Justice Scalia to believe it was on track to create a right to same-sex marriage. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is free to suggest (disapprovingly) that the Court may someday do that. But federal district court judge Vaughn Walker is NOT free to assume it already has.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 966
view profile
History
Prop 8
Posted: 8/13/2010 12:57:40 PM
1 in 12 babies born in America today are born of Illegal Immigrants.


And about *half* of all babies born in Los Angeles. The misinterpretation of the Citizenship Clause in the 14th Am. is a *huge*magnet for illegal immigrants that should have been fixed a long time ago.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 967
view profile
History
Prop 8
Posted: 8/13/2010 2:18:18 PM
The whole reason the Constitution creates three branches of the federal government is to protect our freedom by making it hard for any one branch to abuse its powers. If it tries to, either or both of the other branches can step in. James Madison, who had more to do with creating the Constitution than anyone else, said that combining legislative and executive powers in the same person was "the very definition of tyranny." He was dead right. Executive orders give an unscrupulous, power-hungry president a great way to rule like a dictator. And the Supreme Court isn't a reliable defense against that. It's up to Congress to speak for us.

I like the idea of Congress having a committee--maybe a joint one--oversee executive orders. It would take a 2/3 majority of both Houses to overturn an executive order, because any law which did that would obviously have to survive the president's veto. If the law were based on a joint committee's recommendation against the order, the weight of that recommendation could help it get the necessary 2/3 majority vote.

But the only way for something like this to happen is by caring enough about our freedoms to stop electing people who don't respect them. This country will never stay free if most of us start thinking everything will automatically be fine, and put our government on cruise control. Our Constitution's nothing but a piece of paper, if we let our government employees--and that's all they are--play with it any way they like. When they do that, we should make it our business to know about it. And once we know, fire them.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 972
view profile
History
Prop 8 Passed (Minority Groups Ask To Annul Gay Marriage Ban)
Posted: 8/16/2010 11:26:21 PM

Mr Obama told the Marines: “Thanks in great measure to your service, the situation in Iraq has improved.


Boy, coming from him, I'll bet that really meant a lot to the Marines. Probably the only thing that would have pleased them as much would be a visit by that sexy Janet Napolitano.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 974
view profile
History
Prop 8 Passed (Minority Groups Ask To Annul Gay Marriage Ban)
Posted: 8/17/2010 8:58:26 AM
Last night, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit stayed Judge Walker's order striking down Prop. 8 from taking effect. The court wants to look at it first--and if it pays even the least attention to the law, it won't like what it sees.
Show ALL Forums  > California  >