Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-26-2019 2:35 AM
26 online now:
AZPaul3, dwise1, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK, Tangle (5 members, 21 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 854,793 Year: 9,829/19,786 Month: 2,251/2,119 Week: 287/724 Day: 12/114 Hour: 1/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
Author Topic:   Who's killing the GOP?
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6645
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 16 of 27 (363767)
11-14-2006 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by jar
11-14-2006 1:11 PM


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
This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by jar, posted 11-14-2006 1:11 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by jar, posted 11-14-2006 1:41 PM Chiroptera has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30996
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 17 of 27 (363773)
11-14-2006 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Chiroptera
11-14-2006 1:31 PM


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
This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Chiroptera, posted 11-14-2006 1:31 PM Chiroptera has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Chiroptera, posted 11-14-2006 1:48 PM jar has responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6645
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 18 of 27 (363777)
11-14-2006 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by jar
11-14-2006 1:41 PM


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
This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by jar, posted 11-14-2006 1:41 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by jar, posted 11-14-2006 2:04 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30996
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 19 of 27 (363782)
11-14-2006 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Chiroptera
11-14-2006 1:48 PM


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
This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Chiroptera, posted 11-14-2006 1:48 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

  
ramoss
Member
Posts: 3110
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 20 of 27 (363832)
11-14-2006 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by AnswersInGenitals
11-13-2006 5:20 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 11-13-2006 5:20 PM AnswersInGenitals has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by crashfrog, posted 03-05-2007 10:01 AM ramoss has not yet responded

  
Clark
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 27 (363836)
11-14-2006 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Taz
11-14-2006 12:31 PM


Andrew Sullivan
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Taz, posted 11-14-2006 12:31 PM Taz has not yet responded

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 27 (388157)
03-04-2007 9:24 PM


Ann Coulter
...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.?
Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by nator, posted 03-05-2007 9:50 AM berberry has not yet responded
 Message 25 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-05-2007 10:39 PM berberry has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 342 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 23 of 27 (388224)
03-05-2007 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by berberry
03-04-2007 9:24 PM


Re: Ann Coulter
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by berberry, posted 03-04-2007 9:24 PM berberry has not yet responded

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 27 (388229)
03-05-2007 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by ramoss
11-14-2006 10:28 PM


It's all Bill Clinton's fault.

His penis, specifically. God only knows where the Clenis will strike next!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by ramoss, posted 11-14-2006 10:28 PM ramoss has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 25 of 27 (388411)
03-05-2007 10:39 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by berberry
03-04-2007 9:24 PM


Michelle Malkin Is Easily Surprised
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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by berberry, posted 03-04-2007 9:24 PM berberry has not yet responded

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 27 (388702)
03-07-2007 11:02 AM


More about that old bony woman with the hair
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.?
Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by nator, posted 03-07-2007 6:40 PM berberry has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 342 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 27 of 27 (388794)
03-07-2007 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by berberry
03-07-2007 11:02 AM


Re: More about that old bony woman with the hair
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by berberry, posted 03-07-2007 11:02 AM berberry has not yet responded

    
Prev1
2
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019