Bush and God

[CosbyVoice]Riiiiiiiiiiiigggggggggggggggggght![/CosbyVoice]

 

There are numerous methods available to deal with overzealous leaders or government entities, all of which are "Constitutional."

The most basic is that we are a democratic republic and have a Federal form of government. Such a system is designed as best men knew how to keep government in check. BTW, the fastest way to create an out-of-control government, or a government that can be hijacked by an overzealous dictator, is to have a "true democracy."

There are checks and balances throughout the system, from the simple, straightforward Executive/Legislative/Judicial separation, to various methods of censure (impeachment, removal from office, etc.).

Changing the Constitution itself is a very difficult process, which is a good thing. It can be changed, but it was made as difficult as possible without making it unworkable.

There is also the final Constitutional check on the overzealous and overreaching, which We The People have reserved to ourselves: the 2nd Amendment.

The one thing about all of this though - since we are a government By The People and For The People, if enough people want something, it will happen.

So, if what you're really asking is, "Does the Constitution stop the president from doing something I personally don't like?", the answer is, "Probably not."

 

Dude, you are so late to the party it's not even worth taking your coat off.
There is a really long thread somewhere in which those questions are debated at length. Don't expect to find an answer, though.

 

At this point, I don't care to go through that whole debate again as I've stated my case many times in many ways. What it boils down to is that people who have an opinion on this aren't going to change it.
My point here is more that contentious issues like gay marriage and abortion need to be legislated by the people or they will always be huge points of contention. Judges aren't supposed to be lawmakers, we have three branches of government for a reason. There simply is no Constitutional basis for forcing laws such as gay marriage and unrestricted abortion down the throats of the American public. Activist judges are interpreting the Constitution to mean anything they want it to mean and short-circuiting the rights of Americans to write their own laws and shape their own society.

 

What is an activist judge? One that does not agree with you?

 

it is a judge, who is an activist.

maybe one who is not exactly objective on certain situations?

 

Kind of like the judge who heads the MA Supreme Court and who spearheaded the finding that there was a Constitutional right to gay marriage. She has been actively working on gay causes and speaking before gay political groups for quite some time. She is hardly impartial. Had she any integrity she would have recused herself from deliberating on the issue. Instead, she misused her position to bully the citizens of Massachusetts. It should tell you something that residents of MA, one of the most liberal, socialist states in the union, are not in favor of gay marriage.

 

There ae several constitutional bases for ruling that marriage should not be for heteros only, or vice versa.

Just because you don't like the outcome given by a judge or panel of judges doesn't mean the they are "activist judges".

Of course it was an "activist" panel of the US Supreme Court that ended legal public school segregation in Brown v. Board of Ed.

 

Leave it alone. Don't force God on me and don't go changing everything that mentions him because it wounds you delicate inner child.

Friggin' PC thugs and Ultra Right wing Bible thumpers.

Leave mine to me.

 

I think the struggle between these two groups is turning me into a Libertarian. But WTF, I had so little representation as a moderate Republican that no representation as a Libertarian won't seem so different.

 

i agree with that!!!

 

I agree that (given what you said about her) she probably should not have ruled on the issue.

Either way, she did not make that decision alone, did she? I mean, there have to be other justices on the Massachusetts Supreme Court. If everyone has one vote, she can't be the only one who feels that way. What did I miss?

 

There are seven justices, of which she is obviously one. The other six voted 3 for and 3 against. Basicly, four people from the state decided they would amend a state law. What is to stop these four from amending or creating any other law as they see fit?
Is this really an example of a representative government?

Just to add insight, a little info on her husband.

 

What are you talking about? No laws are being forced "down the throats" of the American people! Laws that would allow gays to be married do not affect you, or me, or Papa, or anyone else but the two people being married. If you have a religious or moral objection to gay marriage, that's fine. But when you deny them the right to marry based on your preferrences, and cannot demonstrate any harm or negative impact to society, then you are FORCING YOUR OPINION on THEM! You are infringing on THEIR rights to pursue happiness - they are not infringing in you and your rights in any way!

Please name three cases, from either the U.S. Supreme Court, or a state supreme court, in which what you have asserted has happened.

 

I've already named two, why do you need three more?

Like it or not, our laws are created through legislation. When a group of less than ten people decide to write laws for millions, that is not representative government, especially when those people are not even elected by the people they are presuming to govern. In the case of MA, it was four people FORCING THEIR OPINIONS ON MILLIONS OF STATE CITIZENS. That ain't the way this country works, even if it disallows some people from doing something that would make them happy.
Gays have every right to pursue happiness within the law. The majority of people are against changing current law to include same sex marriage. The reasons for that vary among people, I'm sure, but the fact remains that it IS the law. I personally believe it would cause harm to society, but it is impossible to demonstrate that harm to a moral relativist. However, if the people, through their elected representatives, decide to amend the law to include same sex marriage, I don't have a problem with it. What problem do you have with representative law-making?

Now let me ask you a question, what purpose is served by gay marriage that would not be served by civil unions?

 

Hmmm, give them equal rights, maybe?

Kind of off-topic but not quite (and not targeting you, IYC): I was watching a documentary on bonobos yesterday. Anybody who argues there aren't homosexual animals should see that. Although to be fair, they are bisexual. But damn, those things not only change positions (including face-to-face) during sex but they also don't mind doing same-sex buddies.

 

There was a time when it was against the law for a black man to date a white woman. "Everybody" knew that it was "just wrong."

 

But those damn activist judges overturned those laws.

 

and american society has been messed up ever since

 

Curses on those black-hearted villins!