|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Who's killing the GOP? | |||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Not according to US law:
However, in the United States, treaties are equal in stature to legislation. Because of this rule, treaties and statutes can override each other--whichever is latest in time is controlling. Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus
|
|||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Look at what it says in Article VI of the Constitution:
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. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
That passage contains the phrase
and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof that is regular Federal law passed by Congress. This passage doesn't state that treaties take precedence over either the Constitution or Federal Law. It states that all Federal law, which included Constitutional provisions, laws passed by Congress, and treaties ratified by the Senate, take precedence over the individual States' laws.
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... So, in this regard, the Constitution, regular Federal law, and treaties are of equal stature in overruling any state's laws. Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus
|
|||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
So, in this regard, the Constitution, regular Federal law, and treaties are of equal stature in overruling any state's laws. Correct. Treaties like the Constitution and Federal Laws are the law of the land. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 612 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Obviously, there is only one person who is responsible for the decline
of the morality in the Republican party. It's all Bill Clinton's fault.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Clark Inactive Member |
I believe the guy you're talking about is Andrew Sullivan. He is HIV positive, gay, practicing Catholic, ex-patriot Brit, and Conservative. He used to be an editor for the New Republic magazine.
Although he is British, he has been a prominent commentator about American politics for a long time and is very much an American Conservative, contrary to what NWR said. Here is his blog, he is an excellent writer and his blog is well worth reading, both Liberals and Conservatives will find much they agree and disagree with. http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/ Here's his book:
Amazon Edited by Clark, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
berberry Inactive Member |
...is certainly doing her part, and with feeling too! But just look who's condemning America's foremost conservative Christian spokeswoman now: Michelle Malkin. Can you believe it? I'm marginally impressed!
And there's a bonus: a condemnation of Hannity-style debating tactics by none other than the ol' finger-jabbing daddy himself (Michelle even provides us with a video link to prove he really said it!!!) - You know, no other person is responsible for what a person says except that person. And so, if they have a problem with what Ann Coulter says, blame Ann Coulter. You can't blame somebody else for what she said. - Sean Hannity, 3 Mar 2007 Might wanna write that one down, folks. It just might come in handy one day soon. W.W.E.D.?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
The thing is, Coulter has been saying hateful, stupid shit for years, but why is it only now that other conservative pundits are objecting?
It just shows that they are craven, amoral sluts to power, and wherever the political winds blow, that's the way they will spin their own opinions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
It's all Bill Clinton's fault. His penis, specifically. God only knows where the Clenis will strike next!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
There are enough spewers of mindless filth, vulgarity, and hatred on TV, at the movies, and in the public schools. We don't expect our children to be exposed to that garbage at the nation's preeminent conservative gathering.
Don't we?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
berberry Inactive Member |
I've been a little bit surprised by the reaction of some of the conservative religious bloggers. I've followed a number of links to religious websites over the past couple days and most of them seem to be genuinely upset with Coulter, although it's exceedingly difficult to find one that shows even the slightest concern that the f-word is a gay slur. Difficult, but not impossible:
This morning I checked the excellent Talk To Action, a blog dedicated to church / state issues. This entry references a conservative Southern Baptist blogger who asks a few remarkable questions:
So . . . why would Ann Coulter use that word? And, even more troubling to me, why would any in her audience laugh? There is nothing remotely funny about that word in any context. It is meant to hurt when boys use it in the locker room, and it was meant to hurt when Ann Coulter used it when speaking to a conservative audience. It demeans homosexuals and should be banned from any acceptable discourse. How can homosexuals think anything but the worst of a movement that would laugh at the use of this slur? How can we think any better of ourselves if we stand by and let it happen? - AlbertMohler.com Although I'm sure there's precious little I'd agree with this guy about, his concern here seems genuine. Maybe some of these people are starting to change, at least a little. Not much more than a little, though. You can't help noticing that he makes a few thinly-veiled yet somewhat milder than expected insults towards gays himself, particularly the one in that last question. Incidentally, I recommend following one of those links and reading more of this guy's post. He brings up a not-so-well-known aspect of the viciousness of this particular utterance from Ann, specifically John Edwards' strong and enduring marriage, a marraige at the heart of a family which has known great tragedy. The Edwards family is precisely the model that cultural conservatives are supposed to be promoting, so what the hell is Ann doing denigrating it? Good point, I say. Read the post. W.W.E.D.?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
I have never, ever seen ANY conservative criticism of Coulter before this.
She has "joked" that liberal Supreme Court and Bill clinton should be killed, and no conservatives said anything. She has called Arabs "ragheads" and no conservatives said anything. She has "joked" that we should televise the torture Arabs as American entertainment, and no conservative said anything. She has said that we should invade all Muslim countries and forcibly convert them all to Christianity, and no conservative said anything. She said that we should "nuke North Korea" and no conservative said anything. It goes on and on and on. But calling Edwards a "faggot"? THAT is something they all think is worth getting outraged over compared to the (in my mind) far, far more offensive and treasonous things she's said in the past? Maybe it's a "last straw" kind of thing, but it is really just very strange to me.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024