“Better idea: "Hey Mexico. We're sorry. You can have it back."”
dalha on Nov 7, 2013 at 23:03:40
“Luv it! LMAO!”
Dave Mundy on Nov 7, 2013 at 15:12:56
“I love the libs that seem to think the US "took" Texas from Mexico. Texas took itself from Mexico, compadre. And held off Mexican invasions for nine years AFTER we beat them in the most decisive battle ever fought in North America.”
“Science utterly disproves the Book of Mormon. No evidence of Smith's patently absurd depiction of indigenous technology has ever been found, nor any evidence of the animals Smith claimed existed. Also, DNA proves that the indigenous people were NOT related to Israelites, as Smith claimed.
Smith also claimed to be able to translate Egyptian hieroglyphics before they were actually translated. Smith insisted a papyrus presented for his study was Abraham's autobiography. Of course that was MORE nonsense. That papyrus was later proven to be a perfectly ordinary Egyptian "Book of the Dead."
The entire LDS religion is a fraud, perpetrated by a convicted fraud.”
However, I would only clarify that marriage is defined as "a civil contract" in every US jurisdiction.
A legal marriage MAY be solemnized by clergy during religious wedding ceremony, but is EQUALLY VALID when solemnized by non-clergy in a secular wedding ceremony.
Any law barring gay people from being parties to a valid civil marriage contract on the basis of "but the Bible says..." is as legally absurd as arguing that gay people should be barred from entering apartment or vehicle leases on the basis "but the Bible says..."
Marriage has also been held a "fundamental right" by SCOTUS in at least five landmark cases. Fundamental rights are yours by virtue of being human, and since gay people ARE human, gay people are entitled to the same rights as...people.”
Lol, no. The Faithful Execution Clause refers to laws. An unconstitutional act is not a law, because no valid law can conflict with the Constitution.
The FEC doesn't require POTUS to dispense with his good judgment and become Congress' robotic instrumentality.
Imagine Congress enacted the Safe Streets Act, purporting to bar all persons from assembling in public for the purpose of protesting the government, under penalty of death as adjudicated by a non-appealable tribunal, and the SSA also contains a jurisdiction stripping provision asserting that it is not subject to judicial review.
Obviously this act is utterly unconstitutional — stem to stern, right? (I can't invent a more plainly unconstitutional statute). So POTUS vetos and Congress overrides. (Or some lunatic POTUS actually signs it and we're talking about his successor. Doesn't matter.)
You cannot seriously be suggesting that POTUS has a Constitutional obligation under the Faithful Execution Clause to execute and enforce the Safe Streets Act?”
“>>Checks & balances? Yes, that's what the judicial branch is for
No, each branch of our tripartite government is CO-EQUAL. If Congress passes a law that is unconstitutional, POTUS may veto. Then Congress may override that veto. Then the executive may choose not to execute on the basis the law is unconstitutional. Then Congress may seek a Writ of Mandamus to force POTUS to execute. Then the Court may decide whether to grant Congress the Writ., etc.
Did you fail civics, or did they not teach you this?”
“No, it was about people like YOU, who think people being screwed by unconstitutional legislation are somehow being irrationally impatient.
Seriously. Just re-read it.
The Senate majority leader is cheering the fact that the courts finally got around to striking down as unconstitutional legislation that he himself played a substantial role in enacting 17 years ago.
How am I supposed to take one of the most powerful Democrats cheering the demise of a discriminatory law he voted for and couldn't even be bothered to repeal after he realized his mistake?
Democrats deserve no credit for this victory, and shouldn't be queuing up to take any. The political process has clearly failed gay Americans, as you can see by the fact that our rights can only be vindicated by courts.
And don't give me "DADT repeal." They only did that because a federal court declared Congress' military gay ban unconstitutional and applied a global injunction on its enforcement. The Democrats's solution was to replace an incredibly discriminatory law with a typically discriminatory law.”
imtruthmonger on Jun 26, 2013 at 18:06:29
“Thanks, I reread the letter and came away feeling much as I did the first time. MLK succinctly describes each of the injustices he saw in full operation at the time, admonishing his fellow clergymen to act on the inequality that has so hatefully entrenched itself into the fabric of southern culture.
After the MLK refresher and at rereading your posts I cannot truthfully find a discernible point in your words and so will abandon the attempt to communicate further.
Change comes about one individual at a time. All I get is that you are unwilling to forgive Harry Reid for changing his mind, no matter how heartfelt (or lack thereof) it may be.
As I mentioned before, today's actions, much like MLK's comments, are about all of us.
Blaming anything on Harry is a waste of time. He's not a hypocrite, he's a guy who finally got it, and did the right thing.
Harry, like all of us, had to wait the process out.
“>>It was law and he can't just tell the various agencies to ignore it
He most certainly can — particularly where he is told by a federal court that the law is unconstitutional, and particularly were he finally concedes that fact. To enforce a law he knows to be unconstitutional is a violation of his oath of office. The president swears to defend the CONSTITUTION, not federal statutes.
Are you unfamiliar with how "checks-and-balances" works?
Also, Obama seized every opportunity to vigorously defend all manner of discriminatory federal legislation. You're certainly welcome to cheer the fact that he finally stopped kicking gay people in the teeth over DOMA, but I'd suggest he shouldn't have been kicking them in the first place.”
myjs on Jun 26, 2013 at 16:39:03
“Checks & balances? Yes, that's what the judicial branch is for and how this had to be settled.
This is what is going to happen now.