Went to Ariel’s school concert last night. Unlike other school systems where specifics of the season are being meticulously expunged, here they actually sing Christmas songs (along with, of all things, a medley from “Fiddler.”) I find that preferable. I think inclusive is always preferable to exclusive. What kind of message are schools sending kids if they effectively stick their heads in the sand and try to ignore all signs of the holidays.
Also, as a Jew, I have to say I don’t understand how it’s possible for the “true meaning” of Christmas to be lost. Yesterday, as I went to the post office to buy a $5 money order and encountered fifteen people on line, each juggling half a dozen packages…or when a local strip mall where I buy groceries had no parking places because it was choked with holiday buyers…or when street after street, normally easy driving, was clogged with traffic…in short, when even the simplest errand took forever, I cannot tell you the number of times I shouted, “Jeeeeesus Chriiiiist.”
PAD
• 
BTW, the Mormon church did not just “outlaw” polygamy, it was beaten into submission by the United States government
So, in the same respect, the southern states never “outlawed” slavery either. They were just beaten into submission by the Union.
Or would that be a rewrite of history as well?
To make the claim that because a state (or two) turns their head at a few cases means they approve of it. Well, that’s more bûllšhìŧ that you’ve decided to throw into this.
But hey, even if they’ve turned their heads, I rather doubt it’s as widespread as, oh, say, the number of Catholic priests abusing children that the Catholic Church purposefully turned it’s head against.
eclark wrote: You’ll have to explain that one to me, David as I really don’t see what could be unconstitutional about it.
It basically defines a marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Nor does it rescind the Full Faith and Credit clause, but allows an exception to certain acts, records and proceedings and their effects. In other words, North Carolina does not have to honor a law its legislature, people, representatives or courts had no part in making.
eclark, my understanding of the Full Faith & Credit clause is that the various states are required to respect the laws of other states. Contract obligations (that are already extant) that are legal in Texas but illegal in Maine cannot be cannot be dodged by simply moving to Maine. If a state legislature goes insane and makes it illegal for anyone under the age of 90 to get married, they are still required to recognize the marriages of couples below that age that were performed in other states. They’re also required to recognize homosexual marriages that are legally performed in other states.
The Defense of Marriage Act should be struck down as unconstitutional because it is a statute passed by Congress that directly contradicts this explicit clause of the Constitution. Congress no more has the power to do this than it has the power to appoint a Supreme Court Justice (a power specifically accorded to the President), to propose a tax bill that orginates in the Senate (all tax bills are required to originate in the House of Representatives) or establish the First Church of the United States (which directly goes against the First Amendment).
In short
My appologies for the poor editing of the my post above. The second paragraph is also quoted text from eclark and should be in italics, just like the first paragraph.
Also, there was no “in short.” I decided that adding another paragraph in the guise of brevity was silly. Unfortunately, I missed a bit when I deleted it.
To make the claim that because a state (or two) turns their head at a few cases means they approve of it. Well, that’s more bûllšhìŧ that you’ve decided to throw into this.
First, we’re talking about a situation where I set up a very specific scenario. If, because of A, B happens, then C or D happens. I never said nor implied that everyone or even a majority of people in Utah want or support polygamy.
Second, it’s irrelevant. The majority of people living in Massuchusetts didn’t want same-sex marriage. It was thrust upon them by a liberal court which refused to give the legislature enough time to deal with the matter legislatively. So all you need is at least one maverick judge.
Third, once again, just playing the odds by naming Utah, since this whole scenario will most likely start in a court room somewhere. And as I’ve already pointed out, Utah already has the track record. Sure I could be wrong. I never in a million years would have thought Massachusetts would be the first state to have same-sex marriage. California, New York, even Hawaii, I could see, but Massachusetts? G’wan!
So you know what you can do with your “bûllšhìŧ”.
The Defense of Marriage Act should be struck down as unconstitutional because it is a statute passed by Congress that directly contradicts this explicit clause of the Constitution. Congress no more has the power to do this than it has the power to appoint a Supreme Court Justice (a power specifically accorded to the President), to propose a tax bill that orginates in the Senate (all tax bills are required to originate in the House of Representatives) or establish the First Church of the United States (which directly goes against the First Amendment).
Not true. The second clause states quite clearly that “Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records and proceedings shall be proved, and the effects thereof.”
So all you need is at least one maverick judge.
Is this a step up from “activist judge” or a step down?
Inquiring (and reasonable) minds want to know!
And while we’re playing the “one step away” crap.
I’m sure that having a gay marriage amendment ban is just one step away from making homosexuality illegal.
If some of you are naive to think it’s one step away from polygamy, why not the opposite?
Craig J. Ries: “But hey, even if they’ve turned their heads, I rather doubt it’s as widespread as, oh, say, the number of Catholic priests abusing children that the Catholic Church purposefully turned it’s head against.”
Please don get me going on this. It will just turn into a tirade that will never end…
…Ok, just let me say this: It’s gratifying to know that the Nazi gold that was held by the Vatican was put to good use by paying off parents so that priests could have sex with their children in not one but many cities and states across the US all while the church hierarchy not only turned a blind eye but indeed endorsed these actions by sending said priests to do it all again with another congregation full of children thus allowing the priests in question to hone their craft and likely nicknames it ‘childrearing’ in some perverse sense of humor and yet none of the parents involved have been charged for exchanging money for not only their childs safety but for their childs sense of self and inner peace because who gives a dámņ as long as I get hundreds of thousands of dollars that my wounded child will never see and look at how nice my new car is while all the Pope had to say about the whole thig is “It’s a sin.”
Where the Hëll are my pills?
eclark1849 responding to David Hunt’s response to his response to my comment that the Comity Clause (aka Full Faith and Credit) would strike down the Defense of Marriage Act: Not true. The second clause states quite clearly that “Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records and proceedings shall be proved, and the effects thereof.”
No, David (great name for great minds) Hunt was right about this one. Look closely about the exact wording of the Comity Clause. It states that the Congress may “prescribe the manner” in which such things shall be proved. Congress can proclaim HOW, not IF, foreign state marriages and contracts may be PROVED, not ENFORCED.
Think about what this clause really was needed for. Imagine you’re in 1795 America and you need to prove that a legal relationship established in another state is valid and enforceable under the Comity Clause. The legal system was somewhat less refined then than it is now, but the legal REPORTING system was vastly less refined. That’s the problem. Today if you need to prove in a North Carolina court that your contract, executed in Pennsylvania, was valid under Pennsylvania law, you have a variety of ways to go about that task. You can pull caselaw from either Westlaw or Lexis; their computer systems have same-day service uploading current opinions, so you can readily prove that an appellate opinion that you wish to cite is authentic and still valid. Technology has rendered that sentence from the Comity Clause superfluous. Going back to twenty years ago, the computer system was no more than an idea in someone’s mind, but there was a well-established publication system for appellate opinions. West had (and has, although with the internet their monopoly is eradicated) a comprehensive system of published opinions; any significant opinion by any significant court will be published by them, you can cite it in your argument, and your audience can follow the citation back (given a large enough law library) to its source. Another company, Shepard’s, published an index of cases, so that your audience can follow that citation to see if the case has been overturned or if it still stands for the proposition you claim for it. The market made that sentence from the Comity Clause superfluous.
Now let’s come back to the 1795 hypothetical. Assume you’re being prosecuted for bigamy because your ex-spouse has shown up to allege that your present marriage is invalid. Divorces had to be granted by courts back then, and you may well have a (state) Supreme Court opinion granting a judgment of absolute divorce and proving your innocence– but how do you prove it? The Pennsylvania Supreme Court published its opinions by a local Harrisburg printing company, and unfortunately the Richmond County, NC, courthouse isn’t on the subscriber list. Congress can enact the means by which you authenticate your handwritten document purporting to be a judgment signed by the Clerk of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Suppose you’re on the other side of the bigamy prosecution, your no-good spouse now claims to have never met you before, and you need to authenticate the even more obscure marriage certificate from a magistrate in McKeesport PA. Technology was different back then– no typewritten documents printed on preprinted forms. No photocopies made under seal of a clerk with a telephone number you could call to verify the document. All you had was a handwritten document by a person nobody in NC has ever heard of in a format that nobody in your county is familiar with. Again, Congress enacts an uniform system of proving that the marriage occurred, presumably something involving difficult-to-counterfeit seals. That’s what that provision allows. Categorically excluding a certain class of legal relationships from full faith and credit would be no more valid than the Congress excluding all Arab-Americans from protections guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment by virtue of its Section 5, “The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.” The power to enforce a provision of the Constitution should not be interpreted to include the discretion not to enforce it at all.
Den: You can read the NYT for free. I didn’t have to pay to read it.
Was that when the story was released? It’s an “archived” article now and they charge.
Den w/ regard to my claim that he was making more of the flier than was actually there, based on the CBS description.I didn’t. The fliers clearly were intended to leave the impression that “liberals”, meaning John Kerry, were planning on outlawing the Bible, using the words “Under God” as only the “first step” in this imaginary sinister plot.
That’s one interpretation. Another is that the party publicists used a “banned Bible logo” because it simply was a tremendously evocative visual image. (Not a redundant phrase, as opposed to a text image, e.g. the words “red apple,” which create an image in your mind without there being a matching image on your screen.) I think it was tasteless and I’m a little embarrassed that a party I support stooped to that level. That doesn’t mean that the RNC seriously expected anyone to believe that John Kerry (not mentioned in the flier) has a specific plan to outlaw the Bible. Just because the Democrats seem to think that we residents of the “flyover states” are simpletons doesn’t mean that the Republicans do. Nobody smarter than my border collie would really believe that any major political party plans that, and it’s not plausible to argue that the Republicans think that our own voters are that stupid. Our voters are smart; that’s why they vote for us.
No, David (great name for great minds) Hunt was right about this one. Look closely about the exact wording of the Comity Clause. It states that the Congress may “prescribe the manner” in which such things shall be proved. Congress can proclaim HOW, not IF, foreign state marriages and contracts may be PROVED, not ENFORCED.
You’ve got a House full of lawmakers, many of them lawyers, who disagree with you, David B. I admit I’m no lawyer, although I did make enough on the LSATs to have gone to law school if I had wanted to. (I took them on a whim.) and my Black’s Law Dictionary is put up somewhere. I may have to go rummaging for it.
Here’s what they say on the matter: This is a problem most properly resolved by invoking Congress’ authority
under the Constitution to declare what “effect” one State’s acts,
records, and judicial proceedings shall have in another State. Congress
has invoked this authority recently on two other occasions; in the
Parental Kidnaping Prevention Act of 1980, which required each State to
enforce child custody determinations made by the home State if made
consistently with the provisions of the Act; and in the Full Faith and
Credit for child Support Order Act of 1994, which required each State to
enforce child support orders made by the child’s State if made
consistently with the provisions of the Act.
So they’re stating that they have precedent on their side. Where are they wrong?
Also, there seems to be some confusion over whether a same-sex marriage actually constitutes an actual “marriage” according to the legal definition of the term. Which, as I understand it, is why so many states are rushing to adopt a “legally specific definition of the term marriage to include a marriage between “One woman and one man”. Under the definition which Congress uses in the DOMA, it would seem that Congress is perfectly within it’s right to declare a same sex “marriage” as invalid and therefore unenforceable. Comments also on this please.
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/leg23.htm
Also, there seems to be some confusion over whether a same-sex marriage actually constitutes an actual “marriage” according to the legal definition of the term.
Upon reflection “contention” may be a more appropriate term.
You’ve got a House full of lawmakers, many of them lawyers, who disagree with you, David B. I admit I’m no lawyer, although I did make enough on the LSATs to have gone to law school if I had wanted to. (I took them on a whim.) and my Black’s Law Dictionary is put up somewhere. I may have to go rummaging for it.
Well, I actually am a lawyer, and this is my opinion based on my training and experience. This wouldn’t be the first time that politicians have engaged in blatantly unconstitutional activity to try to score political points. I’m not sure why you brought your LSAT score into this; I made good enough grades at Columbia to have gone to medical school, but I’d hesitate to make a diagnosis more complicated than “you have a cold.”
So they’re stating that they have precedent on their side. Where are they wrong?
Because both of the precedents they cite are occasions where the Congress has invoked its authority to require states to recognize court orders validly enacted in their sister states. The states have an obligation to recognize each others’ actions and the Congress has authority to enforce that obligation under the Constitution. The DOMA is the exact opposite of that– it purports to carve out a sphere in which the Congress supports any state that flatly refuses to do its duty. This is a subversion of the Constitution, not its enforcement.
karen wrote: Do you know what the Mass. state constitution says? If not, then how do you know the justices are redefining it? They are interpreting the STATE laws, not defining them. Which just happens to be a judges job. The state of MA has the right to it’s own laws and traditions, as long as it does not conflict with federal law. At the time of the decision there was no conflict. As I do not believe an amendment will be passed by congress on this issue, there will be no conflict in the future. Judges do not make law. They interpret what is written by the legislature. If you have not read the state constitution AND if you are not a lawyer versed in the state laws of Mass., then I fail to see how you arived at the opinion that the judges are defining the law. The right can yell all they want about “activist” judges, but that does not maek it true. When judges agree with their positions, they are OK. If a judge happens to disagree, he or she is labeled activist. How fair and balanced is that?
The Massachusetts Constitution may be found online. http://www.mass.gov/legis/const.htm
I am frankly aware of what the judges’ jobs are, which is why I feel confident in saying that they did their jobs poorly in the Goodridge case, which may also be found online. http://www.mass.gov/courts/courtsandjudges/courts/supremejudicialcourt/goodridge.html It is plainly true that it is the justices’ jobs to interpret the state laws; the accusation, however, was that they MISinterpreted them. It is absolutely true that the Commonwealth has a right to its own laws and traditions, but when those laws and traditions are invalidated by judges interposing their will over that of the people they are sworn to protect, it is not merely “the right” (however you define that) who should be upset. Your statement, “Judges do not make law. They interpret what is written by the legislature,” is theoretically true. In practice, however, it is intensely naive. Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr (who made a stop on the SJC en route to the US Supreme Court) once wrote that the study of law is simply the “prophecy” “of what courts will do in fact, and nothing more pretentious.” In discussion of a jurisdiction’s supreme court’s ruling on a constitutional matter, what the court will do in fact can have more importance than what the constitution actually says, because it’s unreviewable short of a constitutiional amendment. Robert Jackson put it a little more poetically, opining that
Was that when the story was released? It’s an “archived” article now and they charge.
The day I posted it, it wasn’t considered archived.
That’s one interpretation. Another is that the party publicists used a “banned Bible logo” because it simply was a tremendously evocative visual image.
Please. Don’t insult me by trying to hide behind that. The wanted to create that impression. They admitted.
That doesn’t mean that the RNC seriously expected anyone to believe that John Kerry (not mentioned in the flier) has a specific plan to outlaw the Bible. Just because the Democrats seem to think that we residents of the “flyover states” are simpletons doesn’t mean that the Republicans do.
If it makes you feel better, Republicans think that minorities in blue states are stupid, too. They circulated two fliers in black neighborhoods in Philly the week before the election. One said that if you or any member of your family had so much as an outstanding parking ticket and you tried to vote, you’d be arrested and your kids would be taken away from you. The other said that there was a change in voting laws and in this past elections, Republicans were to vote on Tuesday and Democrats would vote on Wednesday.
Nobody smarter than my border collie would really believe that any major political party plans that, and it’s not plausible to argue that the Republicans think that our own voters are that stupid. Our voters are smart; that’s why they vote for us.
Phyllis Schlafly believes that the Dems do want to ban the Bible:
http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2004/oct04/04-10-06.html
Or at least she promoted the idea on her blog. I know, you’ll probably just dismiss her as an extremist, but she is a thinker whose voice is heard in conservative circles.
The GOP played dirty (yeah, the Dems did, too) and it worked for them. They won. You should be proud.
Well, I actually am a lawyer, and this is my opinion based on my training and experience.
There are generally two lawyers in most cases and they are both usually trained and experienced. Funny thing though. One of them usually loses.
This wouldn’t be the first time that politicians have engaged in blatantly unconstitutional activity to try to score political points.
Get out! Really? Gee what a shock! Good thing lawyers won’t argue bogus cases just to make their careers, huh?
I’m not sure why you brought your LSAT score into this; I made good enough grades at Columbia to have gone to medical school, but I’d hesitate to make a diagnosis more complicated than “you have a cold.”
Sorry.
Because both of the precedents they cite are occasions where the Congress has invoked its authority to require states to recognize court orders validly enacted in their sister states. The states have an obligation to recognize each others’ actions and the Congress has authority to enforce that obligation under the Constitution. The DOMA is the exact opposite of that– it purports to carve out a sphere in which the Congress supports any state that flatly refuses to do its duty. This is a subversion of the Constitution, not its enforcement.
You didn’t address the last point. Which was the definition of “marriage”. The best example I can think of is the case of Common law marriages, which I understand that most states will recognize, but also some will challenge the validity of, usually based on fraud. Are you saying that under the Full faith and Credit Clause, those states have no right to even challenge a common law “marriage” held valid in another state if they move to state where common law marriage in not valid? If so, what would stop a gay couple from going to Massachusetts to get married, then moving back to their own state where that marriage is invalid? It would seem to be a violation of the very thing you say the Full Faith and credit clause was suppose to prevent.
BTW, David B. I’d be more than willing to take this discussion to email if you’d like to avoid chewing up PAD’s bandwidth.
David Bjorlin is clearly better versed in the details of law and the specific case involved than I am. I’m bowing out after I make a final comment.
eclark was wanting a response to this statement of his: Also, there seems to be some confusion over whether a same-sex marriage actually constitutes an actual “marriage” according to the legal definition of the term
eclark, it was my understanding from the news (a risking place to get information from, I know) that the whole hubbub in Massachusetts was that the Mass. Suppreme Court ruled that the State’s Constitution’s defined marriage in such a way that it did include same-sex marriages. Therefore, state laws that ruled to the contrary of that were invalid. The whole flap started because the Mass. Supreme Court made a binding ruling on what the definition of marriage was…in Massachusetts.
This, of course, is what brings us to discussion of the Full Faith and Credit portion of Article IV. I believe that it’s also part of why President Bush went on the record as being in favor of amending the Constitution to define marriage is such a way as to exclude same-sex unions. That being, he and his advisors don’t think the Defense of Marriage Act can survive a challenge under Full Faith & Credit.
And now that I’ve thrown a (metaphorical) live hand grenade into the debate, I’ll bow out before it goes off. Happy New Year to all.
Forgive me if this seems like an offensive observation, Jim … but frankly, given the views you’ve posted here I’m not seeing an awful lot of daylight between your opinions and his. Keyes’ are phrased in much more inflammatory fashion, granted — but in terms of concrete ideas, I’m not sure I’m seeing much.
Could you elaborate as to places where you think Keyes’ views are far afield from mainstream conservatism?
Tim,
It is a mixture of both what he wants to do and how he says it. I definitely would agree with a lot of Keyes general positions, but on a few he goes to far. The best example is the role of church and state. Keyes would go much farther than I would agree with in turning us back into a “Christian nation.” Since I never believe we were one in the first place, I don’t agree. I think there are a lot of fundamental moral pinciples that came out of Christianity, but that is not the same thing (at least to me) as to imply we should actually be a theocracy.
Obviously, if you compared my views to Alan Keyes or to Jesse Jackson, I would be quite close to Keyes. But the differences in this case are important to me. One of those key differences is how he states things. I actually saw Keyes in person in 1995. He was running for the nomination and made an appearance at a hotel in Dallas. At the time I liked him and voted for him in the primary. But in the 8 years since then, I have changed my mind. While we may share similar views on some core issues, we also differ.
More pragmatically, Keyes doesn’t seem to understand how to acutally govern. He would not have any impact as a politician because he doesn’t understand how to work within our political system. I may be against abortion, for example, but if I was President, I would not work to overturn Roe V Wade in my first week in office. In most cases, changes like this should be done slowly while building some support. You make small changes. You don’t change the world overnight. (Bush does get this and that is why I supported him. I am not looking for abortion on demand to be overturned while he is in office. I am content if we take one step towards a higher respect for the life of the unborn. I would love to see abortion become virtually non-existent, but for it to be because people come to value the life of the unborn child, not just because it is illegal to have one.)
It has been a while since I listened to Keyes, so I am not being as specific as I wish. But there is a clear difference in my mind between Keyes and Bush (as there was, for instance, between Howard Dean and John Kerry). I only heard a small amount of what Keyes said during his campaign in Illinois, but what I did hear would have caused me to wish for a better candidate. I never would have put him up as the Reuplican candidate for senator.
Jim in Iowa
Hmm, wonder how long it’ll take for people to respond to Jim’s comment that Bush gets that “You don’t change the world overnight.”
What kills me is that Keyes attack Hillary Clinton’s run for the Senate in NY as an “assault on federalism” because she hadn’t lived in the state before.
This year, even though he lives in Maryland, he ran for the Senate in Illinois.
He’s a hypocrite, pure and simple.
“assault on federalism”
Heh, essentially Keyes says “we didn’t make those rules, and we oppose their use when it goes against us, but when we can take advantadge of them, we’ll sure use them.”
I’m sure he’d also say that one of his first acts would be to extend the residency rules to make ur harder to go forum shopping with party candidates.
Besides, using those rules isn’t an assault on Federalism. It’s just using the system the way it was intended.
An assault on Federalism would be more like declaring, launching, and promoting a war absent a declaration of war by congress.
Hmm, wonder how long it’ll take for people to respond to Jim’s comment that Bush gets that “You don’t change the world overnight.”
Ok, I’ll be first. 🙂
Let me add one clarification: All things being equal, you don’t try to change things overnight. Bush’s “No Child Left Behind” *at the time* had strong bi-partisan support. Some of Bush’s other initiatives were the same. Even his decision about stem cell research was a compromise to a significant extent.
However, during a crisis, you don’t have the luxury to take things slow. We were attacked on September 11. Whether you agree with his response or not, you are dealing with an immediate threat, not a change in American culture. There are times when you must take immediate action.
Except for the war on terror, Bush has not (at least as a rule) been trying to change things in one major swoop. The closest he currently has come is with his desire to reform Social Security. And I believe there is a threat and an urgency that demands we not keep putting off the change. Yes, he is trying to change the world, but he is doing it one bite at a time (to mix my metaphors).
Jim in Iowa
What kills me is that Keyes attack Hillary Clinton’s run for the Senate in NY as an “assault on federalism” because she hadn’t lived in the state before.
This year, even though he lives in Maryland, he ran for the Senate in Illinois.
He’s a hypocrite, pure and simple.
Which is one of the reasons why he should not have run in the first place. (And gets back to your question. He is out of touch with the real world, which is why he will never win an elected office of any significance.)
That being said, when you have no one else willing to run, it is not like he pushed other interested candidates out of the way. There is a difference between Keyes and Hillary. He did not go after it to further his political ambitions like Hillary did. (Not saying that makes her wrong to have done so or him not a hypocrite, just saying there is a difference in motivation between the two.)
What was done to Ryan who was originally running was wrong. While I don’t condone his alleged sex life, the way it was brought out set the stage for Keyes to have to step in at the last minute. So while Keyes statement clearly came back to bite him in the rear, there were some extenuating circumstances that are relevant.
Jim in Iowa
That being said, when you have no one else willing to run, it is not like he pushed other interested candidates out of the way. There is a difference between Keyes and Hillary. He did not go after it to further his political ambitions like Hillary did. (Not saying that makes her wrong to have done so or him not a hypocrite, just saying there is a difference in motivation between the two.)
Not that I want to defend Chillary, whom I dislike about as much as Jim apparently dislikes Keyes, but I don’t think it’s fair to say that she “pushed other candidates aside.” She ran in an open primary and she won. That’s how the system works. Keyes, on the other hand, didn’t even run in a primary. He was hand picked because the state GOP was desparate for a replacement candidate and felt they needed a conservative black to beat Obama. And Keyes does have political ambition. You don’t run for the Senate or President without it. I don’t buy that he chose to run for any other reason other than to serve his ambition.
What was done to Ryan who was originally running was wrong.
Ryan made his own fate. He knew his extracurricular activities would kill his political career if it ever came to light and he did it anyway. I don’t remember who brought those activities to light, but that’s irrelevant to Keyes’ decision to accept the nomination. There’s no “extenuating circumstances” for compromising your stated position on an issue just to make a run for office. He could have said no. I think it’s sad that the Illinois GOP couldn’t find somebody from within their own state to fill in for Ryan, but that doesn’t mitigate Keyes’ hipocrisy.
BTW, Keyes is also about the only person in the US who has gone no record saying that the 17th Amendment should be repealed. Your homework assignment is to look up what that amendment established.
Ugh. Ðámņ typos. That should have read, “has gone ON record.”
Those are pretty good points, Jim, which maybe is why I didn’t jump right in on the Bush Bashing. Where Bush has been held accountable, or where he doesn’t have unmitigated control, he has proven an effective politician, getting things done in steps. Even No Child Left Behind is a good idea (although horribly administered and implemented).
But his use of force in Iraq I think shows his true nature. Congress handed him the keys to the military. Which is Constitutionally what is supposed to happen. Congress declares war, then turns to the President to prosecute the war.
The problem here is that Congress handed him the keys without specifying a target. Uncontrolled, with no on to account to, he made a decision to invade Iraq in a wholesale attempt to change things, for the better, figuratively overnight. Before we were ready to commit a force capable of controlling insurgent uprising, if even such force could exist, he launched an attack that has destabilized the region and led to the deaths of tens of thousands more people than Saddam would have killed in the same time.
This is a prime example why the office of the President cannot be allowed to undertake unlimited military action, even in the name of pursuing terrorists and protecting US interests.
So, given the opportunity to act in one fell swoop, Bush does so. Which is not to say that a lot of other people wouldn’t have done the same given the same power. But I don’t think that Bush’s record is really one of trying to enact small changes. His entire administration is one based on “Bush’s way or the highway,” top to bottom.
This, of course, is what brings us to discussion of the Full Faith and Credit portion of Article IV. I believe that it’s also part of why President Bush went on the record as being in favor of amending the Constitution to define marriage is such a way as to exclude same-sex unions. That being, he and his advisors don’t think the Defense of Marriage Act can survive a challenge under Full Faith & Credit.
David Hunt;
I’m just asking questions and playing devil’s advocate in some situations. As it turns out, when I research the questions I ask David B. I already have a pretty good idea of the answer he will give me. He, of course, be the actual lawyer, here, has us both out classed.
That said, as I understand it, there have been some political maneuvering to try and make the DOMA “bullet-proof” to judicial review in the House, and I read somewhere that at least one judge has held that it is constitutional. I don’t know how true that is though.
We were attacked on September 11
Except, that it wasn’t Iraq that attacked us.
It wasn’t, technically, the Taliban, either.
This year, even though he lives in Maryland, he ran for the Senate in Illinois.
He’s a hypocrite, pure and simple.
Which is one of the reasons why he should not have run in the first place. (And gets back to your question. He is out of touch with the real world, which is why he will never win an elected office of any significance.)
While I agree with Jim that Keyes shouldn’t have run in the first place, I disagree about him being out of touch. I think Keyes is the conservative version of Al Sharpton. He runs for the podium and the forum, not to win. which is why I have a hard time labeling him as a hypocrite even though he did act hypocritically.
I think Keyes and even the Illinois GOP knew that Obama had a lock on the Illinois senate race and there was no way to win. At that point it became more a matter of personal conviction than political ambition for him.
I live in Illinois. What they did to Ryan was really distateful. At the time, the race between Obama and Ryan was pretty close, and folks around here were starting to look forward to a close election we could all get behind.
Then Ryan’s party threw him under the bus for allegations made during a divorce trial. Allegations made public despite the declaration of all mambers privy to the divorce that they remain sealed. Then Ryan was asked, by his party, to step down for wanting to have sex with his wie, Jeri Ryan. I’m sure many of you know her better as Seven of Nine.
Now, honestly, who (straight males only) among us here WOULDN’T want to have sex with Jeri Ryan. If she were our wife, I mean.
I never heard of Keyes before this year. I hope never to hear from him again, really, but after hearing some of his suggestions (exempting blacks from income tax for a number of years to make reparations for slavery, among them) I honestly thing that the GOP was throwing in the towel. They knew that Obama would win, and use the Illinois race as a means to put the most crazy sounding conservative in the public eye to appease those GOP members getting antsy that the Party was leaning too far left.
Keyes accepted because it gave him a podium, and it buys him lots and lots of GOP credits, that he can turn into a federal court appointment, or maybe a Secretary position somewhere. He did the GOP a huge favor when no one else would step in, and now he’s got coins to cash in at the GOP casino.
He could have said no. I think it’s sad that the Illinois GOP couldn’t find somebody from within their own state to fill in for Ryan, but that doesn’t mitigate Keyes’ hipocrisy.
Can’t argue with you on the first part. In fact, as shocking as it may sound, while I disagree with Hillary on most issues, I think it was ultimately up to New York whether she could represent them or not. I think they were wrong to choose her, but would not agree with how Keyes portrayed the issue.
Have to disagree with you, Den, though about the sex allegations for two reasons. First, it should legally have remained a private matter between he and his wife. If his wife had done an interview and revealed it, fine. That would have been her choice. Second, there was nothing illegal alleged (as far as I know). There was no abuse, no molestation, no rape, no dishonesty. He wanted to do something, and she (rightly in my opinion) declined. That should have been the end of the story. The only reason to drag this out was purely for dirty politics.
Jim in Iowa
We were attacked on September 11
Except, that it wasn’t Iraq that attacked us.
It wasn’t, technically, the Taliban, either.
I know, same song, 12th verse. Which is why I said you may not agree with how he responded. My point was that Bush’s actions came because of a very clear and specific event. One that did require immediate action. I will just agree to disagree with many of you on what that action should have been.
Jim in Iowa
While I agree with Jim that Keyes shouldn’t have run in the first place, I disagree about him being out of touch. I think Keyes is the conservative version of Al Sharpton. He runs for the podium and the forum, not to win. which is why I have a hard time labeling him as a hypocrite even though he did act hypocritically.
I would agree. You are basically defining what I mean when I say he is “out of touch.”
Jim in Iowa
I just arrived home from being out of the loop for a few days, and what do I see? Nine recent posts on the “‘Tis the season” thread. I think to myself, “what are the odds that this thread is still on-topic?”
Not so good, it would seem.
The only reason to drag this out was purely for dirty politics.
Of course it was dirty politics (is there any other kind?). That’s not the point. These days, anyone who puts their hat in the ring had better expect their personal life to be put under a microscope, gag order or not. I don’t like it any more than you do, but that’s the reality of politics today.
Ryan knew the score and he did what he did anyway. That’s just pure idiocy.
I’m not so sure it’s idiocy to expect that sealed court records are going to be unsealed just because you throw your hat into the political ring. Ryan was totally thrown under the bus by his own party because of some allegations mentioned during a divorce proceeding.
Look at it from a little farther back, and you see the GOP dumping Ryan for unproven allegations, yet when Bush faces similarly unproven allegations of desertion and dereliction of duty during his National Guard service, they look the other way.
Maybe Bush is borrowing Clinton’s Teflon coated suits these days?
“Keyes accepted because it gave him a podium, and it buys him lots and lots of GOP credits, that he can turn into a federal court appointment, or maybe a Secretary position somewhere. He did the GOP a huge favor when no one else would step in, and now he’s got coins to cash in at the GOP casino.”
Have to disagree. If anything, his sad performance has now made it possible to do what many in the party have wanted to do for some time–ignore him.
Ryan was totally thrown under the bus by his own party because of some allegations mentioned during a divorce proceeding.
Huh? The Republicans did not bring up the issue or unseal the records. But once they were made public, it did become an issue. Because many conservative Republicans do take these issues seriously. They do think character matters. They do disagree with sexually immoral behavior. The Democrats knew this, which is why they went to extraordinary lenghts to bring it out. The Republicans did not “throw him under the bus,” some Democrats did.
RE: Bush vs. Ryan — There are some very important differences in these cases that make your comparison invalid. The most important one being that in Ryan’s case, there seemed to be some truth to the allegation. In Bush’s case, I (and others) do not believe the allegation to be true. Ryan was not just hurt by the allegation, but by the fact that there was apparently some documentation of the allegation. I know you would claim the same about Bush, but I don’t agree with that claim.
Jim in Iowa
Well, Jim — just to be pedantic, there IS documentation out there for the allegations about Bush’s National Guard days. There’s simply not documentation you happen to believe.
A minor difference to you, perhaps.
Me, I take issue with your implicit claim that Democrats don’t think “character matters.” Trust me, every Democrat I know cares about such things — it’s just that we don’t give the sexual arena of same more focus than it deserves (IMO) in evaluating a person’s fitness for office. As I’ve said on many occasions (though possibly not here), I’m not voting for Husband of the Year — I’d like a leader, please.
TWL
The Democrats knew this, which is why they went to extraordinary lenghts to bring it out.
Uh, no. It was the Chicago Tribune and a local TV station that went to court to have the records unsealed, no the Democrats.
The Republicans did not “throw him under the bus,” some Democrats did.
Again, wrong. He was forced to withdraw from the race under pressure from several prominant Republicans, including Speaker Dennis Hastert.
But, far be it from me to let facts get in the way of a good political diatribe.
Jim, I’m basing this on recollection, so I may be wrong, but it wasn’t a democratic effort to unseal the Ryan’s divorce records, it was an overzealous media that dogged the court. And once those records became public, including statements made by Jeri Ryan about the alleged incident, it was the local GOP that demanded that Ryan step down. Rather than defend their candidate, as they unswaveringly defend Bush, they pressured Ryan to step down.
The only documentation that I’m aware of from following the story locally is the divorce records themselves. Jeri Ryan was the only one who claimed that the suggestions occurred, and there was no other evidence to support her claims.
It was quite possibly a hyperbole statement intended to substantiate an intolerable relationship in need of divorce.
In any case, my point is that the GOP did indeed abandon Ryan because of these unsubstantiated, unsupported, and totally unproven claims. Even if you disregard Dan Rather’s allegedly doctored memo, there’s far more other direct and indirect evidence to support the claims about Bush’s record. Or at least far more than just the word of Jeri Ryan.
Hmm, on second thought, maybe I shouldn’t risregard the weight her evidence should be given…I’m guessing she can be mighty persuasive when she wants to be….
Ack, look, you made me and Den say nearly the same thing… =)
I’m not so sure it’s idiocy to expect that sealed court records are going to be unsealed just because you throw your hat into the political ring.
It was idiocy to go to a sex club and try to convince his wife to have a threesome in the first place and not expect word to get out! People were there and saw him in action. How do you think the Chicago Tribune got the idea to go to court and unseal the records in the first place? People talked.
I dunno, have you seen Jeri Ryan? Not thinking with all his brain cells might be excused under the circumstances.
Still, the lesson here, as in many other cases, is that once you reach a certain level in the political world, your right of privacy pretty much evaporates. And that extends to cover your family, as well.
Which, despite being pretty common knowledge at this point, doesn’t stop people with plenty o skeletons to hide from trying to fill very public positions.
I dunno, have you seen Jeri Ryan? Not thinking with all his brain cells might be excused under the circumstances.
The Barbie Borg? Eh, nice body. Horse face though.
Still, the lesson here, as in many other cases, is that once you reach a certain level in the political world, your right of privacy pretty much evaporates. And that extends to cover your family, as well.
Ding! Ding! Ding!
Which, despite being pretty common knowledge at this point, doesn’t stop people with plenty o skeletons to hide from trying to fill very public positions.
Some are just better at keeping them buried.
It is, however, interesting to see Jim in Iowa quick to accuse the Democrats of digging up dirt on Ryan’s sex life, considering the GOP went after Clinton’s sex life with guns blazing under the guise of investigating an obscure land deal.
Not that I have a tremendous amount of love for Bubba and Chillary. I just felt the need to point that little detail out.
Den,
In fairness to Ryan, we should not assume that verything one’s ex-wife says during a divorce is absoleutely accurate. You assume that the accusations were true.
I remembered the story as being that he asked Jeri to perform a sex act in public, not a threesome. Still mindbogglingly stupid if true. If true.
Jim,
While I would not be so quick to claim that there were no Democrats behind the newspaper’s attempts to open the records (did the newspaper attempt to do the same with Kerry? Just asking because I really don’t know) it’s hard to deny that the Republicans threw him to the wolves, after first running over him with a bus. And this was only after the pushed him out of an airplane with a parachute that, when he pulled the cord, released various picnic items–forks, a basket of food, that sort of thing.
In fairness to Ryan, we should not assume that verything one’s ex-wife says during a divorce is absoleutely accurate. You assume that the accusations were true.
Fair enough. If they aren’t, then the Barbie Borg is guilty of perjury.
I remembered the story as being that he asked Jeri to perform a sex act in public, not a threesome. Still mindbogglingly stupid if true. If true.
According to at least some of the reports I saw, the sex act in question was a threesome.
did the newspaper attempt to do the same with Kerry?
No, but others did. It didn’t make as much of a splash when they were made public because all they proved that he was as dull and condescending as a husband as he was a candidate.
Just checked CNN’s report back in June, no mention of a threesome, but one of the allegations was to have sex in the club, in front of other patrons, so public sex, but not a threesome.
And the story isn’t clear, but that might have occurred in New Orleans, while the second incident occurred in Paris. Jeri allegedly started to cry during that trip, and Jack allegedly repsonded that crying was not a turn on.
So, kinky sex, public sex, but nothing that would violate a marraige vow (sex with anther person, even if you’re wife is there, I’m guessing would still count as adultury).
Of course, the Jay Leno joke is that Ryan is the only politician to lose his shot at an office for wanting to have sex with his wife.
And I still wouldn’t go so far as to call it stupid. sophmoric, maybe, but not stupid. I’ve heard much worse comments passed around between friends. Lewd, crude, and innappropriate, yes. Stupid? Only in hindsight.
It very well could have been a joke. Take the recent Karl Malone-Mrs. Kobe Bryant scandal. From what I read, Malone’s comments were more a poor excuse at a drunken joke than a serious pass at his friend’s wife. If those were his best lines, Karl would still be a very lonely, very single man. Oh, and if he wasn’t 6’9″ and one of the top 50 NBA players in history.
All tbis talk about the Ryans reminds me of Dennis Miller’s definition of a local politician:
“A politician whose darkest secret keeps him from seeking higher office.”