| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"DEATH - Smell Of Bush" |
| Date: |
01 Jun 2006 07:09:27 PM |
| Object: |
Conservatives Living in 1860 |
Four conservatives running for Alabama's Supreme Court are "making an
argument legal scholars thought was settled in the 1800s: that state courts
are not bound by U.S. Supreme Court precedents."
The issue last gained traction after conservatives "railed against federal
court decisions striking down segregation in schools and public
transportation."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060531/ap_on_el_st_lo/alabama_supreme_court
What a bunch of Pugtards.
.
|
|
| User: "B1ackwater" |
|
| Title: Re: Conservatives Living in 1860 |
01 Jun 2006 09:08:16 PM |
|
|
"DEATH - Smell Of Bush" <spit@bush.net> wrote:
Four conservatives running for Alabama's Supreme Court are "making an
argument legal scholars thought was settled in the 1800s: that state courts
are not bound by U.S. Supreme Court precedents."
Guess it wasn't "settled". The dualistic structure of
this country - a national plus 50 state legislatures -
guarentees that jurisdictional issues will NEVER be
completely 'settled'. That goes double when a federal
ruling infringes on areas normally left to state-level
jurisdiction ... say a federal gay marriage ban, or
its opposite.
The issue last gained traction after conservatives "railed against federal
court decisions striking down segregation in schools and public
transportation."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060531/ap_on_el_st_lo/alabama_supreme_court
What a bunch of Pugtards.
Sorry, but the Fed isn't SUPPOSED to dictate to the states
in all matters. In some respects it's just the 51st "state
government" and has to stand in line to get attention. This
is how it should be - prevents the evils that come from
overly-concentrating power.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lloyd King" |
|
| Title: Re: Conservatives Living in 1860 |
02 Jun 2006 09:36:37 AM |
|
|
"B1ackwater" <bw@baarrk.net> wrote in message
news:eha3025arfb515v0khvmtavj82eoubtag4@4ax.com...
"DEATH - Smell Of Bush" <spit@bush.net> wrote:
Four conservatives running for Alabama's Supreme Court are "making an
argument legal scholars thought was settled in the 1800s: that state
courts
are not bound by U.S. Supreme Court precedents."
Guess it wasn't "settled". The dualistic structure of
this country - a national plus 50 state legislatures -
guarentees that jurisdictional issues will NEVER be
completely 'settled'. That goes double when a federal
ruling infringes on areas normally left to state-level
jurisdiction ... say a federal gay marriage ban, or
its opposite.
The issue last gained traction after conservatives "railed against federal
court decisions striking down segregation in schools and public
transportation."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060531/ap_on_el_st_lo/alabama_supreme_court
What a bunch of Pugtards.
Sorry, but the Fed isn't SUPPOSED to dictate to the states
in all matters. In some respects it's just the 51st "state
government" and has to stand in line to get attention. This
is how it should be - prevents the evils that come from
overly-concentrating power.
All that was indeed settled long ago. Lee surrendered. Your side lost.
Get over it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "B1ackwater" |
|
| Title: Re: Conservatives Living in 1860 |
02 Jun 2006 03:13:18 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 2 Jun 2006 09:36:37 -0500, "Lloyd King"
<lloydking@kinglloydcom.com> wrote:
"B1ackwater" <bw@baarrk.net> wrote in message
news:eha3025arfb515v0khvmtavj82eoubtag4@4ax.com...
"DEATH - Smell Of Bush" <spit@bush.net> wrote:
Four conservatives running for Alabama's Supreme Court are "making an
argument legal scholars thought was settled in the 1800s: that state
courts
are not bound by U.S. Supreme Court precedents."
Guess it wasn't "settled". The dualistic structure of
this country - a national plus 50 state legislatures -
guarentees that jurisdictional issues will NEVER be
completely 'settled'. That goes double when a federal
ruling infringes on areas normally left to state-level
jurisdiction ... say a federal gay marriage ban, or
its opposite.
The issue last gained traction after conservatives "railed against federal
court decisions striking down segregation in schools and public
transportation."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060531/ap_on_el_st_lo/alabama_supreme_court
What a bunch of Pugtards.
Sorry, but the Fed isn't SUPPOSED to dictate to the states
in all matters. In some respects it's just the 51st "state
government" and has to stand in line to get attention. This
is how it should be - prevents the evils that come from
overly-concentrating power.
All that was indeed settled long ago. Lee surrendered. Your side lost.
Get over it.
This has nothing to do with THAT civil war ... but
maybe the NEXT one. The Fed got away with all-reaching
anti-discrimination laws in the 50s and 60s - but
with such goodies as abortion and gay marriages still
in play there WILL be a continuing struggle between
state and federal jurisdiction. NOTHING is settled.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lloyd King" |
|
| Title: Re: Conservatives Living in 1860 |
02 Jun 2006 04:14:21 PM |
|
|
"B1ackwater" <bw@barrrk.net> wrote in message
news:44809b55.2492890@news.west.earthlink.net...
On Fri, 2 Jun 2006 09:36:37 -0500, "Lloyd King"
<lloydking@kinglloydcom.com> wrote:
"B1ackwater" <bw@baarrk.net> wrote in message
news:eha3025arfb515v0khvmtavj82eoubtag4@4ax.com...
"DEATH - Smell Of Bush" <spit@bush.net> wrote:
Four conservatives running for Alabama's Supreme Court are "making an
argument legal scholars thought was settled in the 1800s: that state
courts
are not bound by U.S. Supreme Court precedents."
Guess it wasn't "settled". The dualistic structure of
this country - a national plus 50 state legislatures -
guarentees that jurisdictional issues will NEVER be
completely 'settled'. That goes double when a federal
ruling infringes on areas normally left to state-level
jurisdiction ... say a federal gay marriage ban, or
its opposite.
The issue last gained traction after conservatives "railed against
federal
court decisions striking down segregation in schools and public
transportation."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060531/ap_on_el_st_lo/alabama_supreme_court
What a bunch of Pugtards.
Sorry, but the Fed isn't SUPPOSED to dictate to the states
in all matters. In some respects it's just the 51st "state
government" and has to stand in line to get attention. This
is how it should be - prevents the evils that come from
overly-concentrating power.
All that was indeed settled long ago. Lee surrendered. Your side lost.
Get over it.
This has nothing to do with THAT civil war ... but
maybe the NEXT one. The Fed got away with all-reaching
anti-discrimination laws in the 50s and 60s - but
with such goodies as abortion and gay marriages still
in play there WILL be a continuing struggle between
state and federal jurisdiction. NOTHING is settled.
That last civil war was about "states' rights". You folks wanted the states
to continue with legal slavery, but the feds said no. The feds won, and the
supremacy of the federal government was established beyond doubt. You can
try to foment a new civil war, but I doubt you could get enough people riled
up enough to die just so two guys can't get married.
.
|
|
|
| User: "B1ackwater" |
|
| Title: Re: Conservatives Living in 1860 |
03 Jun 2006 12:56:15 AM |
|
|
"Lloyd King" <lloydking@kinglloydcom.com> wrote:
"B1ackwater" <bw@barrrk.net> wrote in message
news:44809b55.2492890@news.west.earthlink.net...
On Fri, 2 Jun 2006 09:36:37 -0500, "Lloyd King"
<lloydking@kinglloydcom.com> wrote:
"B1ackwater" <bw@baarrk.net> wrote in message
news:eha3025arfb515v0khvmtavj82eoubtag4@4ax.com...
"DEATH - Smell Of Bush" <spit@bush.net> wrote:
Four conservatives running for Alabama's Supreme Court are "making an
argument legal scholars thought was settled in the 1800s: that state
courts
are not bound by U.S. Supreme Court precedents."
Guess it wasn't "settled". The dualistic structure of
this country - a national plus 50 state legislatures -
guarentees that jurisdictional issues will NEVER be
completely 'settled'. That goes double when a federal
ruling infringes on areas normally left to state-level
jurisdiction ... say a federal gay marriage ban, or
its opposite.
The issue last gained traction after conservatives "railed against
federal
court decisions striking down segregation in schools and public
transportation."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060531/ap_on_el_st_lo/alabama_supreme_court
What a bunch of Pugtards.
Sorry, but the Fed isn't SUPPOSED to dictate to the states
in all matters. In some respects it's just the 51st "state
government" and has to stand in line to get attention. This
is how it should be - prevents the evils that come from
overly-concentrating power.
All that was indeed settled long ago. Lee surrendered. Your side lost.
Get over it.
This has nothing to do with THAT civil war ... but
maybe the NEXT one. The Fed got away with all-reaching
anti-discrimination laws in the 50s and 60s - but
with such goodies as abortion and gay marriages still
in play there WILL be a continuing struggle between
state and federal jurisdiction. NOTHING is settled.
That last civil war was about "states' rights".
It was about a whole shitload of things.
You folks wanted the states
to continue with legal slavery, but the feds said no.
Actually, that was a side issue - never really came up
until near the end of the war.
The main issue was economic discrimination. The producers
of raw materials - the south - were getting screwed by those
who manufactured goods from those raw materials.
The feds won
Really now ? Then why does this stuff keep coming
up like it does ?
and the
supremacy of the federal government was established beyond doubt.
Read the damned constitution sometime. The Fed is NOT
all-powerful. It was never meant to be so. Even the
federalists knew that would be BAD - so they split up
the power.
You can
try to foment a new civil war, but I doubt you could get enough people riled
up enough to die just so two guys can't get married.
Actually, I expect a lot of people would be willing to
kill and die for "marriage". Don't tempt them.
As for an ordinary civil war ... that usually requires
a geographical component. This doesn't exist anymore,
the population is too well mixed (deliberately).
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Conservatives Living in 1860 |
03 Jun 2006 03:05:00 AM |
|
|
B1ackwater wrote:
"Lloyd King" <lloydking@kinglloydcom.com> wrote:
"B1ackwater" <bw@barrrk.net> wrote in message
news:44809b55.2492890@news.west.earthlink.net...
On Fri, 2 Jun 2006 09:36:37 -0500, "Lloyd King"
<lloydking@kinglloydcom.com> wrote:
"B1ackwater" <bw@baarrk.net> wrote in message
news:eha3025arfb515v0khvmtavj82eoubtag4@4ax.com...
"DEATH - Smell Of Bush" <spit@bush.net> wrote:
Four conservatives running for Alabama's Supreme Court are "making an
argument legal scholars thought was settled in the 1800s: that state
courts
are not bound by U.S. Supreme Court precedents."
Guess it wasn't "settled". The dualistic structure of
this country - a national plus 50 state legislatures -
guarentees that jurisdictional issues will NEVER be
completely 'settled'. That goes double when a federal
ruling infringes on areas normally left to state-level
jurisdiction ... say a federal gay marriage ban, or
its opposite.
The issue last gained traction after conservatives "railed against
federal
court decisions striking down segregation in schools and public
transportation."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060531/ap_on_el_st_lo/alabama_supreme_court
What a bunch of Pugtards.
Sorry, but the Fed isn't SUPPOSED to dictate to the states
in all matters. In some respects it's just the 51st "state
government" and has to stand in line to get attention. This
is how it should be - prevents the evils that come from
overly-concentrating power.
All that was indeed settled long ago. Lee surrendered. Your side lost.
Get over it.
This has nothing to do with THAT civil war ... but
maybe the NEXT one. The Fed got away with all-reaching
anti-discrimination laws in the 50s and 60s - but
with such goodies as abortion and gay marriages still
in play there WILL be a continuing struggle between
state and federal jurisdiction. NOTHING is settled.
That last civil war was about "states' rights".
It was about a whole shitload of things.
You folks wanted the states
to continue with legal slavery, but the feds said no.
Actually, that was a side issue - never really came up
until near the end of the war.
Typical turdwater crap.
The main issue was economic discrimination. The producers
of raw materials - the south - were getting screwed by those
who manufactured goods from those raw materials.
Wrong...or Liar! It always was over slavery. A few white plantation
owners wanted to maintain their aristocratic lifestyle. So they lied to
*YOUR* immoral dimwit ancestors that it was just economic issues.
That's why the Klan and Jim Crow started after the war, it was
economics. *****.
The south could have build their own industry, but that would have
created an independent middleclass. Aristocracies hate middleclasses
because they complete for political power.
The feds won
Really now ? Then why does this stuff keep coming
up like it does ?
Because liberals keep giving reichwing fundiwackos a chance to become
decent people.
and the
supremacy of the federal government was established beyond doubt.
Read the damned constitution sometime. The Fed is NOT
all-powerful. It was never meant to be so. Even the
federalists knew that would be BAD - so they split up
the power.
But it was meant to be preeminent. Compare the Articles of
Confederation to the Constitution.
You can
try to foment a new civil war, but I doubt you could get enough people riled
up enough to die just so two guys can't get married.
Actually, I expect a lot of people would be willing to
kill and die for "marriage". Don't tempt them.
Same kind who killed to prevent miscegenation. Your kind. No? Then
don't defend 'em and don't promote their agenda.
As for an ordinary civil war ... that usually requires
a geographical component. This doesn't exist anymore,
the population is too well mixed (deliberately).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kevin Cunningham" |
|
| Title: Re: Conservatives Living in 1860 |
03 Jun 2006 02:56:19 PM |
|
|
<liberalhere@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1149321899.942207.290370@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
B1ackwater wrote:
"Lloyd King" <lloydking@kinglloydcom.com> wrote:
"B1ackwater" <bw@barrrk.net> wrote in message
news:44809b55.2492890@news.west.earthlink.net...
On Fri, 2 Jun 2006 09:36:37 -0500, "Lloyd King"
<lloydking@kinglloydcom.com> wrote:
"B1ackwater" <bw@baarrk.net> wrote in message
news:eha3025arfb515v0khvmtavj82eoubtag4@4ax.com...
"DEATH - Smell Of Bush" <spit@bush.net> wrote:
Four conservatives running for Alabama's Supreme Court are "making
an
argument legal scholars thought was settled in the 1800s: that state
courts
are not bound by U.S. Supreme Court precedents."
Guess it wasn't "settled". The dualistic structure of
this country - a national plus 50 state legislatures -
guarentees that jurisdictional issues will NEVER be
completely 'settled'. That goes double when a federal
ruling infringes on areas normally left to state-level
jurisdiction ... say a federal gay marriage ban, or
its opposite.
The issue last gained traction after conservatives "railed against
federal
court decisions striking down segregation in schools and public
transportation."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060531/ap_on_el_st_lo/alabama_supreme_court
What a bunch of Pugtards.
Sorry, but the Fed isn't SUPPOSED to dictate to the states
in all matters. In some respects it's just the 51st "state
government" and has to stand in line to get attention. This
is how it should be - prevents the evils that come from
overly-concentrating power.
All that was indeed settled long ago. Lee surrendered. Your side
lost.
Get over it.
This has nothing to do with THAT civil war ... but
maybe the NEXT one. The Fed got away with all-reaching
anti-discrimination laws in the 50s and 60s - but
with such goodies as abortion and gay marriages still
in play there WILL be a continuing struggle between
state and federal jurisdiction. NOTHING is settled.
That last civil war was about "states' rights".
It was about a whole shitload of things.
You folks wanted the states
to continue with legal slavery, but the feds said no.
Actually, that was a side issue - never really came up
until near the end of the war.
Typical turdwater crap.
The main issue was economic discrimination. The producers
of raw materials - the south - were getting screwed by those
who manufactured goods from those raw materials.
Wrong...or Liar! It always was over slavery. A few white plantation
owners wanted to maintain their aristocratic lifestyle. So they lied to
*YOUR* immoral dimwit ancestors that it was just economic issues.
That's why the Klan and Jim Crow started after the war, it was
economics. *****.
The south could have build their own industry, but that would have
created an independent middleclass. Aristocracies hate middleclasses
because they complete for political power.
Great post! One point is that the south was divided internally. We can see
that today in West Virginia. Through out appalachia union sentiment was
strong while confederates were on the run. It was a stake in the south's
heart.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "B1ackwater" |
|
| Title: Re: Conservatives Living in 1860 |
03 Jun 2006 05:16:58 PM |
|
|
On 3 Jun 2006 01:05:00 -0700, wrote:
B1ackwater wrote:
"Lloyd King" <lloydking@kinglloydcom.com> wrote:
"B1ackwater" <bw@barrrk.net> wrote in message
news:44809b55.2492890@news.west.earthlink.net...
On Fri, 2 Jun 2006 09:36:37 -0500, "Lloyd King"
<lloydking@kinglloydcom.com> wrote:
"B1ackwater" <bw@baarrk.net> wrote in message
news:eha3025arfb515v0khvmtavj82eoubtag4@4ax.com...
"DEATH - Smell Of Bush" <spit@bush.net> wrote:
Four conservatives running for Alabama's Supreme Court are "making an
argument legal scholars thought was settled in the 1800s: that state
courts
are not bound by U.S. Supreme Court precedents."
Guess it wasn't "settled". The dualistic structure of
this country - a national plus 50 state legislatures -
guarentees that jurisdictional issues will NEVER be
completely 'settled'. That goes double when a federal
ruling infringes on areas normally left to state-level
jurisdiction ... say a federal gay marriage ban, or
its opposite.
The issue last gained traction after conservatives "railed against
federal
court decisions striking down segregation in schools and public
transportation."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060531/ap_on_el_st_lo/alabama_supreme_court
What a bunch of Pugtards.
Sorry, but the Fed isn't SUPPOSED to dictate to the states
in all matters. In some respects it's just the 51st "state
government" and has to stand in line to get attention. This
is how it should be - prevents the evils that come from
overly-concentrating power.
All that was indeed settled long ago. Lee surrendered. Your side lost.
Get over it.
This has nothing to do with THAT civil war ... but
maybe the NEXT one. The Fed got away with all-reaching
anti-discrimination laws in the 50s and 60s - but
with such goodies as abortion and gay marriages still
in play there WILL be a continuing struggle between
state and federal jurisdiction. NOTHING is settled.
That last civil war was about "states' rights".
It was about a whole shitload of things.
You folks wanted the states
to continue with legal slavery, but the feds said no.
Actually, that was a side issue - never really came up
until near the end of the war.
Typical turdwater crap.
The main issue was economic discrimination. The producers
of raw materials - the south - were getting screwed by those
who manufactured goods from those raw materials.
Wrong...or Liar! It always was over slavery.
Did they tell you that in your 'liberal'-dominated
public school ?
Only a tiny minority of southerners owned slaves. The
issue wasn't enough to motivate millions of ordinary
southerners to take up arms against the union. Now
getting cheated and shat-upon by powerful northern
interests ... THAT was enough.
A few white plantation
owners wanted to maintain their aristocratic lifestyle. So they lied to
*YOUR* immoral dimwit ancestors that it was just economic issues.
That's why the Klan and Jim Crow started after the war, it was
economics. *****.
My ancestors fought for the union actually ... one
even rotted away in the infamous Andersonville POW
camp. Hey, he might have been THE uncle, the RICH
uncle, who would have put the whole family on easy
street - but instead the rebs let him die.
The south could have build their own industry, but that would have
created an independent middleclass. Aristocracies hate middleclasses
because they complete for political power.
While there were wealthy families in the south, there
weren't enough of them, a great enough concentration,
to get a real industrial base going. Also, the north
conspired to undermine any attempts to create value-
adding industries in the south.
The feds won
Really now ? Then why does this stuff keep coming
up like it does ?
Because liberals keep giving reichwing fundiwackos a chance to become
decent people.
Tisk ... lefties ought not use the word 'decent' ... sounds
like a value judgement of some kind, moral absolutism. Next
you'll evoke gawd ...
and the
supremacy of the federal government was established beyond doubt.
Read the damned constitution sometime. The Fed is NOT
all-powerful. It was never meant to be so. Even the
federalists knew that would be BAD - so they split up
the power.
But it was meant to be preeminent. Compare the Articles of
Confederation to the Constitution.
Preeminent in SOME instances, but not all. Note how the Fed
has to essentially blackmail the states into following its
recommendations about speed limits and the drinking age.
The Fed threatens to yank their federal highway-improvment
funds of they don't comply. This isn't something a body
with absolute authority would have to do.
The Articles were TOO state oriented, but the current
constitution didn't completely erase State authority - or
it could never have been ratified.
You can
try to foment a new civil war, but I doubt you could get enough people riled
up enough to die just so two guys can't get married.
Actually, I expect a lot of people would be willing to
kill and die for "marriage". Don't tempt them.
Same kind who killed to prevent miscegenation. Your kind. No? Then
don't defend 'em and don't promote their agenda.
A handful of mean-spirited rednecks killed miscegenators. The
marriage issue provokes a LOT of people - that much is clear.
As for miscegenation ... I always kinda thought black/white
couples looked 'symmetrical', an aesthetic ying/yang sort
of thing. Hey, give us a few thousand years and we'll all
like kinda polynesian anyhow - I've seen the computer sims.
Pretty good actually.
However, I expect genetic engineering to intervene a lot
sooner than five thousand years. Knock off a couple of
zeros actually. Who knows WHAT aesthetic (or asthetics)
will become popular and dominant. We'll barely be 'human'
by current standards in 5000 years - mostly synthetic
polymers and silicones and "meat-tronics". Some of the
ancient aesthetic 'ideals' will surely persevere - but
the familiar outward shapes will conceal a whole new
'animal' (or animalS) on the inside. Probably won't BE
a "human race" - but "raceS".
Oughtta be pretty cool.
Well, unless there's a fatal religious war over whether
the blue people with four arms or the green people with
three eyes are in the TRUE image of the creator :-)
As for an ordinary civil war ... that usually requires
a geographical component. This doesn't exist anymore,
the population is too well mixed (deliberately).
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Captain Compassion" |
|
| Title: Re: Conservatives Living in 1860 |
03 Jun 2006 02:12:47 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 03 Jun 2006 05:56:15 GMT, B1ackwater <bw@baarrk.net> wrote:
"Lloyd King" <lloydking@kinglloydcom.com> wrote:
"B1ackwater" <bw@barrrk.net> wrote in message
news:44809b55.2492890@news.west.earthlink.net...
On Fri, 2 Jun 2006 09:36:37 -0500, "Lloyd King"
<lloydking@kinglloydcom.com> wrote:
"B1ackwater" <bw@baarrk.net> wrote in message
news:eha3025arfb515v0khvmtavj82eoubtag4@4ax.com...
"DEATH - Smell Of Bush" <spit@bush.net> wrote:
Four conservatives running for Alabama's Supreme Court are "making an
argument legal scholars thought was settled in the 1800s: that state
courts
are not bound by U.S. Supreme Court precedents."
Guess it wasn't "settled". The dualistic structure of
this country - a national plus 50 state legislatures -
guarentees that jurisdictional issues will NEVER be
completely 'settled'. That goes double when a federal
ruling infringes on areas normally left to state-level
jurisdiction ... say a federal gay marriage ban, or
its opposite.
The issue last gained traction after conservatives "railed against
federal
court decisions striking down segregation in schools and public
transportation."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060531/ap_on_el_st_lo/alabama_supreme_court
What a bunch of Pugtards.
Sorry, but the Fed isn't SUPPOSED to dictate to the states
in all matters. In some respects it's just the 51st "state
government" and has to stand in line to get attention. This
is how it should be - prevents the evils that come from
overly-concentrating power.
All that was indeed settled long ago. Lee surrendered. Your side lost.
Get over it.
This has nothing to do with THAT civil war ... but
maybe the NEXT one. The Fed got away with all-reaching
anti-discrimination laws in the 50s and 60s - but
with such goodies as abortion and gay marriages still
in play there WILL be a continuing struggle between
state and federal jurisdiction. NOTHING is settled.
That last civil war was about "states' rights".
It was about a whole shitload of things.
You folks wanted the states
to continue with legal slavery, but the feds said no.
Actually, that was a side issue - never really came up
until near the end of the war.
The main issue was economic discrimination. The producers
of raw materials - the south - were getting screwed by those
who manufactured goods from those raw materials.
The feds won
Really now ? Then why does this stuff keep coming
up like it does ?
and the
supremacy of the federal government was established beyond doubt.
Read the damned constitution sometime. The Fed is NOT
all-powerful. It was never meant to be so. Even the
federalists knew that would be BAD - so they split up
the power.
US Constitution Article VI.
Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which
shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which
shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the
supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound
thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the
Contrary notwithstanding.
You can
try to foment a new civil war, but I doubt you could get enough people riled
up enough to die just so two guys can't get married.
Actually, I expect a lot of people would be willing to
kill and die for "marriage". Don't tempt them.
As for an ordinary civil war ... that usually requires
a geographical component. This doesn't exist anymore,
the population is too well mixed (deliberately).
--
"Science is the record of dead religions." -- Oscar Wilde
"There are no absolute certainties in this universe. A man must try to
whip order into a yelping pack of probabilities, and uniform success is
impossible." -- Jack Vance
"Civilization is the interval between Ice Ages." -- Will Durant.
"War is God's way of teaching Americans geography" -- Ambrose Bierce
"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life.
--Will Durant
Joseph R. Darancette
daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "B1ackwater" |
|
| Title: Re: Conservatives Living in 1860 |
03 Jun 2006 04:49:28 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 03 Jun 2006 00:12:47 -0700, Captain Compassion
<daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote:
On Sat, 03 Jun 2006 05:56:15 GMT, B1ackwater <bw@baarrk.net> wrote:
"Lloyd King" <lloydking@kinglloydcom.com> wrote:
"B1ackwater" <bw@barrrk.net> wrote in message
news:44809b55.2492890@news.west.earthlink.net...
On Fri, 2 Jun 2006 09:36:37 -0500, "Lloyd King"
<lloydking@kinglloydcom.com> wrote:
"B1ackwater" <bw@baarrk.net> wrote in message
news:eha3025arfb515v0khvmtavj82eoubtag4@4ax.com...
"DEATH - Smell Of Bush" <spit@bush.net> wrote:
Four conservatives running for Alabama's Supreme Court are "making an
argument legal scholars thought was settled in the 1800s: that state
courts
are not bound by U.S. Supreme Court precedents."
Guess it wasn't "settled". The dualistic structure of
this country - a national plus 50 state legislatures -
guarentees that jurisdictional issues will NEVER be
completely 'settled'. That goes double when a federal
ruling infringes on areas normally left to state-level
jurisdiction ... say a federal gay marriage ban, or
its opposite.
The issue last gained traction after conservatives "railed against
federal
court decisions striking down segregation in schools and public
transportation."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060531/ap_on_el_st_lo/alabama_supreme_court
What a bunch of Pugtards.
Sorry, but the Fed isn't SUPPOSED to dictate to the states
in all matters. In some respects it's just the 51st "state
government" and has to stand in line to get attention. This
is how it should be - prevents the evils that come from
overly-concentrating power.
All that was indeed settled long ago. Lee surrendered. Your side lost.
Get over it.
This has nothing to do with THAT civil war ... but
maybe the NEXT one. The Fed got away with all-reaching
anti-discrimination laws in the 50s and 60s - but
with such goodies as abortion and gay marriages still
in play there WILL be a continuing struggle between
state and federal jurisdiction. NOTHING is settled.
That last civil war was about "states' rights".
It was about a whole shitload of things.
You folks wanted the states
to continue with legal slavery, but the feds said no.
Actually, that was a side issue - never really came up
until near the end of the war.
The main issue was economic discrimination. The producers
of raw materials - the south - were getting screwed by those
who manufactured goods from those raw materials.
The feds won
Really now ? Then why does this stuff keep coming
up like it does ?
and the
supremacy of the federal government was established beyond doubt.
Read the damned constitution sometime. The Fed is NOT
all-powerful. It was never meant to be so. Even the
federalists knew that would be BAD - so they split up
the power.
US Constitution Article VI.
Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which
shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which
shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the
supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound
thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the
Contrary notwithstanding.
You're missing the point. There are certain kinds of issues
which are within the Feds pervue, and some which are not.
Those that ARE - then the Feds decision is THE decision.
Civil-rights/equality-before-the-law ... that was a federal
sort of issue and thus federal law persevered. But consider
other items like speed limits or the drinking age. The Fed
has to resort to de-facto blackmail in order to get the
states to follow its recomendations. "Do it or we'll yank
your highway-improvement funding".
.
|
|
|
| User: "B1ackwater" |
|
| Title: Re: Conservatives Living in 1860 |
04 Jun 2006 01:06:24 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 03 Jun 2006 19:17:59 -0700, Captain Compassion
<daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote:
States also have constitutions. The Supreme Court of Massachusetts
declared that banning same sex marriage was unconstitutional and a
violation of the civil rights of Massachusetts citizens. A decision or
law on the federal level could effect that decision.
Only if it can be framed as a "civil-rights" issue. Maybe
it's not. Not everything that people want to do can be
called "civil-right" issues. If I want to drive 90 through
school zones or run nekked through the mall ... are those
"civil rights" issues or just ordinary statutory law ?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Conservatives Living in 1860 |
03 Jun 2006 02:43:58 AM |
|
|
B1ackwater wrote:
On Fri, 2 Jun 2006 09:36:37 -0500, "Lloyd King"
<lloydking@kinglloydcom.com> wrote:
"B1ackwater" <bw@baarrk.net> wrote in message
news:eha3025arfb515v0khvmtavj82eoubtag4@4ax.com...
"DEATH - Smell Of Bush" <spit@bush.net> wrote:
Four conservatives running for Alabama's Supreme Court are "making an
argument legal scholars thought was settled in the 1800s: that state
courts
are not bound by U.S. Supreme Court precedents."
Guess it wasn't "settled". The dualistic structure of
this country - a national plus 50 state legislatures -
guarentees that jurisdictional issues will NEVER be
completely 'settled'. That goes double when a federal
ruling infringes on areas normally left to state-level
jurisdiction ... say a federal gay marriage ban, or
its opposite.
The issue last gained traction after conservatives "railed against federal
court decisions striking down segregation in schools and public
transportation."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060531/ap_on_el_st_lo/alabama_supreme_court
What a bunch of Pugtards.
Sorry, but the Fed isn't SUPPOSED to dictate to the states
in all matters. In some respects it's just the 51st "state
government" and has to stand in line to get attention. This
is how it should be - prevents the evils that come from
overly-concentrating power.
All that was indeed settled long ago. Lee surrendered. Your side lost.
Get over it.
This has nothing to do with THAT civil war ... but
maybe the NEXT one. The Fed got away with all-reaching
anti-discrimination laws in the 50s and 60s - but
with such goodies as abortion and gay marriages still
in play there WILL be a continuing struggle between
state and federal jurisdiction. NOTHING is settled.
Ahh, ol' turdwater stinks up the Internet with his best Bill Buckley
imitation "What's bad about discrimination." And then adds his "I wanna
stick my nose in your reproductive organs" reichwing fundiwacko
philosophy. turdy, when you lead the stoning of Newt Gingrich as an
adulterer and Stom Thurmond (pity he's dead) as a racist rapist, you
can make return to making noises about things that, nonetheless, are
really not your business. I guess if gay marriage is legalized, you're
getting a divorce.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Godzilla Pimp" |
|
| Title: Re: Conservatives Living in 1860 |
03 Jun 2006 08:38:00 AM |
|
|
Actually, I'm living in the Age of Pericles. It's been mostly downhill since
then under Jewish ideas (Christianity, Marxism, Feminism).
GP
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Captain Compassion" |
|
| Title: Re: Conservatives Living in 1860 |
01 Jun 2006 09:51:55 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 02 Jun 2006 00:09:27 GMT, "DEATH - Smell Of Bush"
<spit@bush.net> wrote:
Four conservatives running for Alabama's Supreme Court are "making an
argument legal scholars thought was settled in the 1800s: that state courts
are not bound by U.S. Supreme Court precedents."
The issue last gained traction after conservatives "railed against federal
court decisions striking down segregation in schools and public
transportation."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060531/ap_on_el_st_lo/alabama_supreme_court
What a bunch of Pugtards.
No court is required to follow precedent however they may open
themselves to reversal upon appeal.
--
"Science is the record of dead religions." -- Oscar Wilde
"There are no absolute certainties in this universe. A man must try to
whip order into a yelping pack of probabilities, and uniform success is
impossible." -- Jack Vance
"Civilization is the interval between Ice Ages." -- Will Durant.
"War is God's way of teaching Americans geography" -- Ambrose Bierce
"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life.
--Will Durant
Joseph R. Darancette
daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kevin Cunningham" |
|
| Title: Re: Conservatives Living in 1860 |
03 Jun 2006 03:01:26 PM |
|
|
"Captain Compassion" <daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:6o9v7295kbt95rs6cigqsvpq30m2irkfke@4ax.com...
On Fri, 02 Jun 2006 00:09:27 GMT, "DEATH - Smell Of Bush"
<spit@bush.net> wrote:
Four conservatives running for Alabama's Supreme Court are "making an
argument legal scholars thought was settled in the 1800s: that state
courts
are not bound by U.S. Supreme Court precedents."
The issue last gained traction after conservatives "railed against federal
court decisions striking down segregation in schools and public
transportation."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060531/ap_on_el_st_lo/alabama_supreme_court
What a bunch of Pugtards.
No court is required to follow precedent however they may open
themselves to reversal upon appeal.
"No court is required to follow precedent", huh? Geez, this is the weekly
winner of the Dumbest Thing I Saw This Week award.
Yes, courts are supposed to follow precedent. Its called stare decisis,
this has already been decided. One of the tools you learn when in law
school is how to make sure your case isn't in line with others.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Captain Compassion" |
|
| Title: Re: Conservatives Living in 1860 |
03 Jun 2006 04:03:13 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 03 Jun 2006 20:01:26 GMT, "Kevin Cunningham"
<smskjd@mindspring.com> wrote:
"Captain Compassion" <daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:6o9v7295kbt95rs6cigqsvpq30m2irkfke@4ax.com...
On Fri, 02 Jun 2006 00:09:27 GMT, "DEATH - Smell Of Bush"
<spit@bush.net> wrote:
Four conservatives running for Alabama's Supreme Court are "making an
argument legal scholars thought was settled in the 1800s: that state
courts
are not bound by U.S. Supreme Court precedents."
The issue last gained traction after conservatives "railed against federal
court decisions striking down segregation in schools and public
transportation."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060531/ap_on_el_st_lo/alabama_supreme_court
What a bunch of Pugtards.
No court is required to follow precedent however they may open
themselves to reversal upon appeal.
"No court is required to follow precedent", huh? Geez, this is the weekly
winner of the Dumbest Thing I Saw This Week award.
Because your ignorant. Courts are "required" to follow the law.
Yes, courts are supposed to follow precedent. Its called stare decisis,
this has already been decided. One of the tools you learn when in law
school is how to make sure your case isn't in line with others.
Stare decisis (Latin: ['stare? 'dekisis], Anglicisation: ['sta??i
d?'sa?s?s], "to stand by things decided") (more fully, "stare decisis
et non quieta movere") is a Latin legal term, used in common law to
express the notion that prior court decisions must be recognized as
precedents, according to case law.
This doctrine is not held within most civil law jurisdictions as it is
argued that this principle interferes with the right of judges to
interpret law and the right of the legislature to make law. Most such
systems, however, recognize the concept of jurisprudence constante,
which argues that even though judges are independent, they should rule
in a predictable and non-chaotic manner. Therefore, judges' right to
interpret law does not preclude the adoption of a small number of
selected binding case laws.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stare_decisis
Beyond this the courts are filled with contrarian judges and
nullifying juries.
--
"Science is the record of dead religions." -- Oscar Wilde
"There are no absolute certainties in this universe. A man must try to
whip order into a yelping pack of probabilities, and uniform success is
impossible." -- Jack Vance
"Civilization is the interval between Ice Ages." -- Will Durant.
"War is God's way of teaching Americans geography" -- Ambrose Bierce
"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life.
--Will Durant
Joseph R. Darancette
daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
