 | | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Unless the state declares something illegal that it is unconstitutional to so declare. For example, if a particular state prevented the right of free assembly or free association, that would be unconstitutional. The supremes might not rule on (...) (20 years ago, 28-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Atheism (was: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution)
|
|
(...) Whoops, I did misread what you wrote. Anyways, the bit about the Bush v. Gore Florida ruling still shows that they have no problem turning you away on a mere technicality, but then deny your claim later. And you know what? I'm perfectly okay (...) (20 years ago, 28-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Mike, I generally agree with you. In this case I agree with your logic, but I think one of your foundational premises is questionable and really, this whole issue revolves around it. Is marriage merely a contractual relationship? I think it (...) (20 years ago, 27-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Atheism (was: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution)
|
|
(...) Actually, I think you need to reread what I wrote. I think the common man's stance is that the POA is fine as is. That's what the court could have asserted. (...) And this "difference between belief and fact" is what you're claiming underpins (...) (20 years ago, 27-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Wrong, yourself. The Federal government has no right to make a law declaring same-sex marriage illegal. They can always make a constitutional amendment. Also, state governments don't need to be given specific permission to do something as long (...) (20 years ago, 27-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) To be fair, slaves and women were seen more as property than people by many of the colonists, and they basically inherited the idea that political rights were tied to landownership from England. But if you were a white male landowner in the (...) (20 years ago, 27-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Politicians allowed to veto use of news footage?
|
|
(...) Not in the US. At least not any that I've ever heard. Once you're deemed to be "in the public eye", you lose a lot of your privacy rights while in the public view (they can't sneak into your house, but they might be able to get away with (...) (20 years ago, 27-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Politicians allowed to veto use of news footage?
|
|
(...) I wouldn't be surprised if other politically controlled news-orgs have that policy as well. It sort of stands to reason they would not want to upset the apple cart, derail the gravy train, rough up the golden-egg-laying-goose, you know what I (...) (20 years ago, 27-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Wrong. Any law that violates the constitution is invalid. The government has no right what so ever to declare gay marriage illegal. I would argue they have no right to be involved with marriage at all. (...) Wrong again. It is the judical (...) (20 years ago, 27-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Did the IR not also make the slave trade economical by inflating the price of slaves? Scott A (...) (20 years ago, 27-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
