Well two brothers are 'consenting adults'.I feel horrible that the first thought that came to mind was 'Fullmetal Alchemist fan fics'.
I just got back from Otakon. I hate you now.
If you are going to just use spot quotes out of context to change the meaning of my post then I can't really answer (i.e. the logical sounding policies quote). As to words changing all the time you are incorrect. New words appear and a small percentage (less than 1%) of old words GRADUALLY change meaning. What is more common is the change in spelling, in that way our written language is more fluid, but the cognitive meaning is much less so.
Sorry to jump in late here on this, and I won't address the substantive issues raised (water under the bridge at this point, probably).
But, on this point about language you are factually dead wrong, in every respect. Here is a useful link to describe some aspects of the fields of study occupied with how the meanings of words change over time: Semantic Change (I know it's wikipedia, but it's handy and not inaccurate)
You have no idea.Kagan, I think will be a fearfully bad justice.Sorry it took me a while to dig up the article,
Courtfool asked me to argue why SSM is dangerous. Since that's not my position, I didn't feel obligated to reply.
Fortunately, Mr. Rousch lays out my feelings better than I can.
And unless you have a time machine, neither do you. ;)
(Not that I know either...I don't. It's just that there have been many supreme court justices who didn't turn out the way anyone -- especially the presidents who nominated them -- expected).
|
You have no idea.Kagan, I think will be a fearfully bad justice.Sorry it took me a while to dig up the article,
Courtfool asked me to argue why SSM is dangerous. Since that's not my position, I didn't feel obligated to reply.
Fortunately, Mr. Rousch lays out my feelings better than I can.
And unless you have a time machine, neither do you. ;)
(Not that I know either...I don't. It's just that there have been many supreme court justices who didn't turn out the way anyone -- especially the presidents who nominated them -- expected).
Honestly, I'm just going by her record at Harvard and a few other things that don't fill me with confidence that she will rule with the Constitution in mind, particularly dealing with certain appointments in the legal arena who are enamored with Sharia law. I hope against hope she'll pull a Stevens and go 180 degrees from her nominator, but I'm not holding my breath.
|
|
Confessions of a Gay Weapon of Marital Destruction
Funny little article that's somewhat relevant to the conversation at hand.
|
You know what's funny, I've been getting more and more active in my spiritual growth over the past couple of months, and a large part in that was played by my wife, without her I don't think I would have grown as a person the way I have. I've recently gotten baptized, I'm attending church regularly, I've just decided this weekend that I can no longer work much needed overtime if it's on Sundays, I'm getting involved in the churches remodeling project. In every way I think I'm growing closer to god and my own spirituality, and despite that, I can't think of one good reason that gay people can't get married. I find more passages in the bible that tell me I should just let them be and leave it to god to decide than I can find passages that tell me I should stand in the way of them declaring their love for one another. So while there are passages in the bible that say the lifestyle is wrong, there are more that say I should just accept and love them, not isolate or separate them. So count me against "Fred" as "Fred" is keeping them separate. I hope anyone who finds someone they love chooses to make a meaningful commitment to them and grows in their own spirituality the way my wife helped me grow in mine.
You know what's funny, I've been getting more and more active in my spiritual growth over the past couple of months, and a large part in that was played by my wife, without her I don't think I would have grown as a person the way I have. I've recently gotten baptized, I'm attending church regularly, I've just decided this weekend that I can no longer work much needed overtime if it's on Sundays, I'm getting involved in the churches remodeling project. In every way I think I'm growing closer to god and my own spirituality, and despite that, I can't think of one good reason that gay people can't get married. I find more passages in the bible that tell me I should just let them be and leave it to god to decide than I can find passages that tell me I should stand in the way of them declaring their love for one another. So while there are passages in the bible that say the lifestyle is wrong, there are more that say I should just accept and love them, not isolate or separate them. So count me against "Fred" as "Fred" is keeping them separate. I hope anyone who finds someone they love chooses to make a meaningful commitment to them and grows in their own spirituality the way my wife helped me grow in mine.
+1
Sounds like you're in a really good place. Congrats.
Precedent can be overturned: Banning interracial marriage unconstitutional.
I am no legal scholar, but since these are both civil rights cases involving rights to marry, this case could be considered to have precedence as well.
And it shows a precedence of turning over previous court decisions.
+5
If you substitute anything other than gay into right to marriage, you see the absurdity of the law...
Marriage is only allowed between a man and woman.
Marriage is only allowed between a Caucasian and an Asian
|
|
Precedent can be overturned: Banning interracial marriage unconstitutional.
I am no legal scholar, but since these are both civil rights cases involving rights to marry, this case could be considered to have precedence as well.
And it shows a precedence of turning over previous court decisions.
+5
If you substitute anything other than gay into right to marriage, you see the absurdity of the law...
Marriage is only allowed between a man and woman.
Marriage is only allowed between a Caucasian and an Asian
But it's different because they both have man parts and it grosses us out!
But seriously, there isn't much difference here. It's something people don't understand and therefore refuse to condone.
|
|
Precedent can be overturned: Banning interracial marriage unconstitutional.
I am no legal scholar, but since these are both civil rights cases involving rights to marry, this case could be considered to have precedence as well.
And it shows a precedence of turning over previous court decisions.
Man reading the history of interracial marriage (extremely relevant for me) the parallels are unmistakable. As they get more frequent certain states pass amendments banning them. Then it takes some years but hopefully the gay marriage movement turns out the same as the interracial marriage movement.
|
Confessions of a Gay Weapon of Marital Destruction
Funny little article that's somewhat relevant to the conversation at hand.
Some of the hateful comments there really sadden me. Especially the recasting of the article using 'pervert' and 'perversion'.
|
Some of the hateful comments there really sadden me. Especially the recasting of the article using 'pervert' and 'perversion'.Confessions of a Gay Weapon of Marital Destruction
Funny little article that's somewhat relevant to the conversation at hand.
I think the comments sections of online news outlets represent some of the most spiteful, hateful rhetoric there is. Something about the anonymity of the internet, I assume. I try not to read them, but then I slip up...
Some of the hateful comments there really sadden me. Especially the recasting of the article using 'pervert' and 'perversion'.
My reaction exactly. What a downer... and I was on a high point of optimism in mankind, after seeing how much of Belgrade has been rebuilt and experiencing how vibrant that city is so soon after the bombings.
Some of the hateful comments there really sadden me. Especially the recasting of the article using 'pervert' and 'perversion'.
I don't hate gays. I can't help it if the righteous Sword of God(tm) is going to painfully sever their sin-filled heads from their perverted bodies. I'm very sorry to say that ALL GAYS WILL BE TOSSED INTO THE LAKE OF FIRE TO BURN FOR ALL TIME,
...but I don't hate them.
Gimme a break.
...
Gimme a break.
Would you like a timeout, kit kat or something that requires a cast?
;P|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Again, a different viewpoint.
Personally, I find the linked article kind of offensive. The idea that someone sworn to uphold the constitution doesn't uphold it is scary. How about we just not honor that sufferage thing. Everyone ok with that?
|
|
Again, a different viewpoint.
Personally, I find the linked article kind of offensive. The idea that someone sworn to uphold the constitution doesn't uphold it is scary. How about we just not honor that sufferage thing. Everyone ok with that?
When an unconstitutional piece of legislation makes it into the constitution via majority rule, someone with some sort of legal power has to step up and do something.
When an unconstitutional piece of legislation makes it into the constitution via majority rule, someone with some sort of legal power has to step up and do something.Again, a different viewpoint.
Personally, I find the linked article kind of offensive. The idea that someone sworn to uphold the constitution doesn't uphold it is scary. How about we just not honor that sufferage thing. Everyone ok with that?
Ironical, it is decisions like this that makes it more likely that a (federal) constitutional amendment will be proposed, and if history has been any evidence based on the individual state decisions, would have a fair chance of passing. Similar to how the situation in Cali developed.
|
|
When an unconstitutional piece of legislation makes it into the constitution via majority rule, someone with some sort of legal power has to step up and do something.Again, a different viewpoint.
Personally, I find the linked article kind of offensive. The idea that someone sworn to uphold the constitution doesn't uphold it is scary. How about we just not honor that sufferage thing. Everyone ok with that?
Which is exactly what the Judicial Branch of the government was designed to do. Judges exist to decide issues just like this. Our system of government was designed in order to protect the rights of the few against the will of the many, and I am proud that it often works as intended. Sometimes it falters, but its a work in progress.
Again, a different viewpoint.
Personally, I find the linked article kind of offensive. The idea that someone sworn to uphold the constitution doesn't uphold it is scary. How about we just not honor that sufferage thing. Everyone ok with that?
Yes! Stop the Sufferaging of Women! ;P
The idea that someone sworn to uphold the constitution doesn't uphold it is scary.
Tell that to the Executive Branch. *rimshot*
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
The idea that someone sworn to uphold the constitution doesn't uphold it is scary.Tell that to the Executive Branch. *rimshot*
Actually, this *was* the executive branch. Arnie and Moonbeam.
Of course, if you're fine with this, what if it's property rights? Or that pesky 14th ammendment? Maybe AZ should continue to enforce SB 1370 becasue the governor doesn't feel that it's right to have it blocked because the federal government won't do it's job? Or would you be cheering if Arnie didn't carry out the court's orders?
*That's* what worries me, when people who are sworn to uphold the rule of law disregard it for their personal preferences.
|
|
The idea that someone sworn to uphold the constitution doesn't uphold it is scary.Tell that to the Executive Branch. *rimshot*Actually, this *was* the executive branch. Arnie and Moonbeam.
Of course, if you're fine with this, what if it's property rights? Or that pesky 14th ammendment? Maybe AZ should continue to enforce SB 1370 becasue the governor doesn't feel that it's right to have it blocked because the federal government won't do it's job? Or would you be cheering if Arnie didn't carry out the court's orders?
*That's* what worries me, when people who are sworn to uphold the rule of law disregard it for their personal preferences.
Maybe if we stopped passing idiotic laws then we wouldn't have a problem with what people choose to enforce. No one has a problem enforcing laws to prevent theft and murder, but when the laws advocate idiotic things like say shutting down a 7 year old's lemonade stand because they don't have a food safety permit, then suddenly you get rational people who say this is idiotic and don't want it enforced.
You know what's funny, I've been getting more and more active in my spiritual growth over the past couple of months, and a large part in that was played by my wife, without her I don't think I would have grown as a person the way I have. I've recently gotten baptized, I'm attending church regularly, I've just decided this weekend that I can no longer work much needed overtime if it's on Sundays, I'm getting involved in the churches remodeling project. In every way I think I'm growing closer to god and my own spirituality, and despite that, I can't think of one good reason that gay people can't get married. I find more passages in the bible that tell me I should just let them be and leave it to god to decide than I can find passages that tell me I should stand in the way of them declaring their love for one another. So while there are passages in the bible that say the lifestyle is wrong, there are more that say I should just accept and love them, not isolate or separate them. So count me against "Fred" as "Fred" is keeping them separate. I hope anyone who finds someone they love chooses to make a meaningful commitment to them and grows in their own spirituality the way my wife helped me grow in mine.+1
Sounds like you're in a really good place. Congrats.
+2
my congratulations to you as well, it sounds to me like you got the "message" as opposed to the law.
then suddenly you get rational people who say this is idiotic and don't want it enforced.Then the people change the laws.
If the law itself was "illegal" (because it violates the Constitution of the United States), then would not enforcing that law also be "illegal"?
This is the problem for Governor Schwarzenegger. Because of the courts ruling, he has to deside if he actually has the right (and duty) to enforce this law, or not.
|
|
[ No one has a problem enforcing laws to prevent theft and murder.<snippage>
Glad to see your support of those 'stupid' laws and treaties, lkl.
Not following your point, it seems one was a judge who refused to support the death penalty, another was a judge who refused to add drug charges on top of other criminal charges, and the third was about the trail of tears? So, I don't quite get the point you're trying to make? can you explain it?
|
|
Not following your point, it seems one was a judge who refused to support the death penalty, another was a judge who refused to add drug charges on top of other criminal charges, and the third was about the trail of tears? So, I don't quite get the point you're trying to make? can you explain it?
"No one has a problem enforcing laws to prevent theft and murder."
Yet there is a judge who refused to punish a murderer when evidence was stacked skyhigh against him.
|
|
Not following your point, it seems one was a judge who refused to support the death penalty, another was a judge who refused to add drug charges on top of other criminal charges, and the third was about the trail of tears? So, I don't quite get the point you're trying to make? can you explain it?"No one has a problem enforcing laws to prevent theft and murder."
Yet there is a judge who refused to punish a murderer when evidence was stacked skyhigh against him.
Um you'll have to forgive me as I read that no-where in the linked articles, I read that one judge supressed crack and marijuana evidence, and the other refused to use the death penalty, (if that's what you're talking about) there's a difference between not using death penalty and not punishing at all. So forgive me if I don't see his point from the linked articles, or know what you're refrencing as I see no mention anywhere in any of his links where it says the judge refused to punish a murderer...
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
then suddenly you get rational people who say this is idiotic and don't want it enforced.Then the people change the laws.If the law itself was "illegal" (because it violates the Constitution of the United States), then would not enforcing that law also be "illegal"?
Yes, if the law is valid, then it should be enforced.
But, if the law is not valid, then the government has no business enforcing it. (In fact as the 1960s civil rights movement showed us, it may actually be a crime for the State government to try to enforce an "illegal" law.)
This is the problem for Governor Schwarzenegger. Because of the courts ruling, he has to deside if he actually has the right (and duty) to enforce this law, or not.
Well, I think the judge was wrong, but that's not the issue.
Arnie's (and Moonbeam's) oaths are to the people and the constitution of California. They're sworn to uphold the constitution of California. The Constitution includes Prop 8. They are obligated to defend it in court whether they agree with it or not. They chose not to defend it. If you don't feel you can carry out your duties you campaigned for and volunteered for, resign.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Um you'll have to forgive me as I read that no-where in the linked articles, I read that one judge supressed crack and marijuana evidence, and the other refused to use the death penalty, (if that's what you're talking about) there's a difference between not using death penalty and not punishing at all. So forgive me if I don't see his point from the linked articles, or know what you're refrencing as I see no mention anywhere in any of his links where it says the judge refused to punish a murderer...Not following your point, it seems one was a judge who refused to support the death penalty, another was a judge who refused to add drug charges on top of other criminal charges, and the third was about the trail of tears? So, I don't quite get the point you're trying to make? can you explain it?"No one has a problem enforcing laws to prevent theft and murder."
Yet there is a judge who refused to punish a murderer when evidence was stacked skyhigh against him.
Did you not read a) the opposition of the death penalty despite it being part of the state and federal laws, and b) the second judge doing his best to impeed a law rather than see its enforcement?
As to the Trail of tears, the courts ruled it unconstitutional, and Jackson refused to defend/enforce it. The same course of action that you're cheering here.
|
|
Well, I think the judge was wrong, but that's not the issue.
Arnie's (and Moonbeam's) oaths are to the people and the constitution of California. They're sworn to uphold the constitution of California. The Constitution includes Prop 8. They are obligated to defend it in court whether they agree with it or not. They chose not to defend it. If you don't feel you can carry out your duties you campaigned for and volunteered for, resign.
No, no, no, no, no! This type of circular logic is ridiculous.
Yes, prop 8 amended the California constitution (thereby making itself constitutional--see there's that circular logic), but the amendment itself was in violation of the US constitution. Remember that whole supremacy clause thing? Yeah, that applies here. The US constitution will trump the California constitution every time.
These people did the right thing by refusing to uphold and/or defend an amendment they knew to be in violation of the US constitution.
|
|
Um you'll have to forgive me as I read that no-where in the linked articles, I read that one judge supressed crack and marijuana evidence, and the other refused to use the death penalty, (if that's what you're talking about) there's a difference between not using death penalty and not punishing at all. So forgive me if I don't see his point from the linked articles, or know what you're refrencing as I see no mention anywhere in any of his links where it says the judge refused to punish a murderer...Not following your point, it seems one was a judge who refused to support the death penalty, another was a judge who refused to add drug charges on top of other criminal charges, and the third was about the trail of tears? So, I don't quite get the point you're trying to make? can you explain it?"No one has a problem enforcing laws to prevent theft and murder."
Yet there is a judge who refused to punish a murderer when evidence was stacked skyhigh against him.
Did you not read a) the opposition of the death penalty despite it being part of the state and federal laws, and b) the second judge doing his best to impeed a law rather than see its enforcement?
As to the Trail of tears, the courts ruled it unconstitutional, and Jackson refused to defend/enforce it. The same course of action that you're cheering here.
Actually if that's your point then you've done nothing to dissuade me from my point.
A)While I support the death penalty I don't have a problem with a judge choosing to use it or not as its not a choice between the death penalty or they go free. In fact the death penalty has been shown to actually cost the state more than life in prison.
B) the second judge was impeding drug laws which for the record I consider the stupidest, poorest laws ever written.
C)The trail of tears was a smear on our nations history, Your saying Jackson refused to enforce putting a stop to it. In that case you are talking about a relevant argument, but there's a lot more involved in that discussion that would derail this thread, so I'm not going to go into it.
Needless to say those are all examples of where we use enacted laws above and beyond those necessary that all people agree should be enforced. (the death penalty, drug laws, the massive forced relocation of a group of people) as opposed to laws that we can all get behind. I guess in that way I'm as minarchist as BT because I believe that many of those instances if we hadn't had people attempting to legislate things they shouldn't in the first place we'd have been better off.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Well, I think the judge was wrong, but that's not the issue.
Arnie's (and Moonbeam's) oaths are to the people and the constitution of California. They're sworn to uphold the constitution of California. The Constitution includes Prop 8. They are obligated to defend it in court whether they agree with it or not. They chose not to defend it. If you don't feel you can carry out your duties you campaigned for and volunteered for, resign.
No, no, no, no, no! This type of circular logic is ridiculous.
Yes, prop 8 amended the California constitution (thereby making itself constitutional--see there's that circular logic), but the amendment itself was in violation of the US constitution. Remember that whole supremacy clause thing? Yeah, that applies here. The US constitution will trump the California constitution every time.
These people did the right thing by refusing to uphold and/or defend an amendment they knew to be in violation of the US constitution.
No Xpltvdeleted. You may feel it was unconstitutional, they may feel it was unconstitutional, the Judge may ignore Baker v. Nelson and say it was unconstitutional, but that doesn't change that it was lawfully passed and ammended into California's constitution, and that constitution they are sworn to defend. A political official needs to do their job, whether they sometimes like it or not. If he can't do the job, he should resign.
Well, I think the judge was wrong, but that's not the issue.
Arnie's (and Moonbeam's) oaths are to the people and the constitution of California. They're sworn to uphold the constitution of California. The Constitution includes Prop 8. They are obligated to defend it in court whether they agree with it or not. They chose not to defend it. If you don't feel you can carry out your duties you campaigned for and volunteered for, resign.
No, no, no, no, no! This type of circular logic is ridiculous.
Yes, prop 8 amended the California constitution (thereby making itself constitutional--see there's that circular logic), but the amendment itself was in violation of the US constitution. Remember that whole supremacy clause thing? Yeah, that applies here. The US constitution will trump the California constitution every time.
These people did the right thing by refusing to uphold and/or defend an amendment they knew to be in violation of the US constitution.
They KNEW? So they are (federal) Supreme Court Justices or can see into the future? According to precedent, same-sex marriage had already been viewed as "want of a substantial federal question." [baker v. nelson] Or in other words, at one time the (federal) Supreme Court had issued a statement that not allowing same-sex marriage wasn't a constitutional issue. So these state officials, actually should have done their damn best, even if they personally felt the state amendment was wrong. Since (a) they were charged with serving the state's interested and not the federal's, and (b) the federal courts have already issued a statement that this was not a federal constitutional issue.
Now of course the federal supreme court [this court v. old court] might change their minds, they have before and they will again. But claiming that the state officials KNEW that this was unconstitutional [federally] is a total load of crap. There was no way they KNEW or still KNOW, you have one judge's opinion versus the standing opinion of several regional courts as well as the supreme court itself. These officials failed in their responsibilities of their offices. If they can't do the job they are given, they should step down.
EDIT: Ok, if you truly believe that government officials knew this was (federally) unconstitutional, then answer me this. Why was the previous decision that forced Cali to allow same-sex couples to get married based on the state constitution and not the federal constitution? It would be if it was indeed federally unconstitutional, it would have made more sense to state so, since that would be the stronger case? Has something changed since that case and this one to the federal constitution, that made it ok then and not ok now?
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Actually if that's your point then you've done nothing to dissuade me from my point.
A)While I support the death penalty I don't have a problem with a judge choosing to use it or not as its not a choice between the death penalty or they go free. In fact the death penalty has been shown to actually cost the state more than life in prison.
B) the second judge was impeding drug laws which for the record I consider the stupidest, poorest laws ever written.
C)The trail of tears was a smear on our nations history, Your saying Jackson refused to enforce...
A) To argue against the existence of the death penalty as a politician is one thing. To try to thwart the implimentation of the penalty as an officer of the law is something else entirely.
B) Do I take it that you agree that elected officials should only enforce the laws they like?
C) Yes, I'm saying he refused to enforce the law. Exactly as the Governour has refused to enforce his.
If you're cheering the judge not enforcing 'stupidest, poorest laws' then you'd support AZ ignoring the court decision because it was 'stupid and poor'? How about if CA ignored Prop 8 then? After all, 53% + would call the judge's logic 'stupid and poor.'
There are a lot of laws I disagree with. But I don't pretend the 'stupid and poor' defense would work in court. (Well unless I was the judge, apparently)
|
|
If you're cheering the judge not enforcing 'stupidest, poorest laws' then you'd support AZ ignoring the court decision because it was 'stupid and poor'? How about if CA ignored Prop 8 then? After all, 53% + would call the judge's logic 'stupid and poor.'There are a lot of laws I disagree with. But I don't pretend the 'stupid and poor' defense would work in court. (Well unless I was the judge, apparently)
No what I'm saying is we shouldn't be putting them in the position to have to choose in the first place. My point wasn't towards the right or wrong of choosing to enforce laws, rather that we shouldn't be legislating these things in the first place, forcing people to chose between what the law says and what they know is right or wrong.
|
|
No Xpltvdeleted. You may feel it was unconstitutional, they may feel it was unconstitutional, the Judge may ignore Baker v. Nelson and say it was unconstitutional, but that doesn't change that it was lawfully passed and ammended into California's constitution, and that constitution they are sworn to defend. A political official needs to do their job, whether they sometimes like it or not. If he can't do the job, he should resign.
Doing your job whether you like it or not is different than doing your job in the face of something you feel is illegal. Even in the military, there is not requirement to follow orders if you believe them to be unlawful.
They KNEW? So they are (federal) Supreme Court Justices or can see into the future? According to precedent, same-sex marriage had already been viewed as "want of a substantial federal question." [baker v. nelson] Or in other words, at one time the (federal) Supreme Court had issued a statement that not allowing same-sex marriage wasn't a constitutional issue.
I am not familiar with baker v. nelson, will have to research. As to the SCOTUS issuing a statement, that is not the same as a ruling.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
The problem with prop 8 and any other ballot initiatives designed to ban same-sex marriage (or deny any right), is that a simple majority is being used to deny rights to a minority. This is not how our political system was designed to nor should work. Allowing the populace at large to deny rights to minorities based on a simple majority vote is a very, very slippery slope. What's to stop people in a state with high unemployment and a large hispanic population to put a ballot initiative in that says all hispanics need to be rounded up so all the illegals can be kicked out?
What's to stop them? Federal statutes and rulings prohibiting racial discrimination.
There are likely good reasons to invalidate Proposition 8. But "we don't want a majority to limit people's actions" is a bogus reason. Majorities limit actions all the time, and we're generally fine with that.
The majority believes that I should not be allowed to exercise my right to own Canadian slaves, despite the explicit permissions in Leviticus 25:44. The majority of voters believes I should not be allowed to exercise my "right" to have sex with my (hypothetical) 7-year-old daughter. (She's not of the age of majority to consent, so I, as her parent, would obligingly consent for her.)
Calling an action a "right" presupposes the argument, implying that it should be legal. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you know that's what you're doing, Ryan. It's sleazy rhetoric, and you can do better.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
But to make a point in regards to doing your duty even if you think its wrong, (and sorry to godwin) we've actually set a historical standard that you can't just do what you're supposed to (enforce a law) if you know its wrong.
Then you resign. Especially since no one is going to shoot Arnie.
Plus, how does he 'know' it's wrong? I 'know' it's wrong to limit me to drive 20 in a school zone, I'm sure I can do 25 or 35 easily. Will the judge let me off because I 'know' it's wrong?
Edit: The purpose of the Republic is to 'consent with the will of the governed.' By not enforcing the laws they personally don't like, it becomes tyrany, not a republic. This is also why the people have the right to redress grievances. You don't like a law, you pass legislation to repeal it. You don't get a sympathetic judge to waive the law away with his magic gavel, or an executive to ignore it.
But to make a point in regards to doing your duty even if you think its wrong, (and sorry to godwin) we've actually set a historical standard that you can't just do what you're supposed to (enforce a law) if you know its wrong.
So a public defender that is given a client that the attorney feels is guilty should sabotage the client's defense?
@Xpltvdeleted
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
But to make a point in regards to doing your duty even if you think its wrong, (and sorry to godwin) we've actually set a historical standard that you can't just do what you're supposed to (enforce a law) if you know its wrong.So a public defender that is given a client that the attorney feels is guilty should sabotage the client's defense?
[sarc]Sounds good to me! I mean if I feel he's guilty, why shouldn't I work to put him away![/sarc]
|
|
What's to stop them? Federal statutes and rulings prohibiting racial discrimination.
And that is another problem...we have laws preventing racial discrimination, but the laws we have on the books regarding gays encourage discrimination (DOMA).
There are likely good reasons to invalidate Proposition 8. But "we don't want a majority to limit people's actions" is a bogus reason. Majorities limit actions all the time, and we're generally fine with that.
The US was established as a representative republic in order to prevent a situation where a simple majority vote could be used to trample on the rights of a minority.
The majority believes that I should not be allowed to exercise my right to own Canadian slaves, despite the explicit permissions in Leviticus 25:44.
Good thing we aren't a theocracy, huh? Slavery (if it is viewed as right) is not allowed because it is limiting or removing the rights of another. The only time rights should be sacrificied is if they infringe upon the rights of another.
The majority of voters believes I should not be allowed to exercise my "right" to have sex with my (hypothetical) 7-year-old daughter. (She's not of the age of majority to consent, so I, as her parent, would obligingly consent for her.)
Yet another attempt to draw a comparison between homosexuality and pedophelia (and incest, all in one line), you can do better Chris.
Calling an action a "right" presupposes the argument, implying that it should be legal. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you know that's what you're doing, Ryan. It's sleazy rhetoric, and you can do better.
My wife was able to marry the person she loves, yet her sister cannot. Why? Because the state has said that, even though she is a consenting adult, she cannot enter into a contract with another consenting adult. I do not feel it sleazy to say that adults have the right to enter into contract with whomever they please (assuming the other party is also a consenting adult).
There's a matter of degree here. I don't know exactly where the line is, but there are clearly situations in which one should not enforce unjust laws. Nor is simply stepping asides always the answer. On the other hand, society can't function if everyone feels free to ignore any law they like on the basis that it is "unjust."
It may be a hard line to draw, but pretending the line doesn't exist is pointless.
The US was established as a representative republic in order to prevent a situation where a simple majority vote could be used to trample on the rights of a minority.
Bingo.
The majority of voters believes I should not be allowed to exercise my "right" to have sex with my (hypothetical) 7-year-old daughter. (She's not of the age of majority to consent, so I, as her parent, would obligingly consent for her.)
Um...interesting choice of analogy (psst...your gay == child molester bias is showing).
Yet another comparison involving the rights of another violated, which doesn't apply in the case of gay marriage. Nor does the fact that some standards should exist mean that the standard of heterosexual only marriages should exist. Does not compute.
|
|
But to make a point in regards to doing your duty even if you think its wrong, (and sorry to godwin) we've actually set a historical standard that you can't just do what you're supposed to (enforce a law) if you know its wrong.So a public defender that is given a client that the attorney feels is guilty should sabotage the client's defense?
@Xpltvdeleted
I guess my question is, how should lower courts rule when they feel the SCOTUS has contradicted iteself? The SCOTUS has recognized that barring marriage on the basis of race is not constitutional, yet wouldn't hear a case regarding barring marriage on basis of sexuality. If a lower court views this as contradictory, couldn't they reference the IM case vs. the SSM case?