lawrocket 3 #26 October 27, 2006 There are far better reasons for giving Pombo the boot. Pombo is a scumbucket. Dems hate him. Local Republicans don't like him, either. Well, at least the local Repub party elite. The Republican party challenger strongly endorses his Dem opponent. Instead of focusing on his environmental record (his Endangered Species Act legislation received plenty of votes) why not focus on the financial thuggery and sweetheart deals with political contributions that would make Cruz Bustamante proud! Instead of the real dirt of financial abuse, why focus on environmental legislation he got passed? In fact, why not explain that the "nature trails through his property" were not "nature trails" but a former railway line easement that was to be converted to a trail? It's a different thing altogether. Pombo IS an asshole. He is the sort of slimy-type dude whose campaign financing is pretty questionable. He DESERVES to be on that lost, but for other reasons. Griping about his environmental record would be like Mary Todd Lincoln grousing before bed that night that she had a lousy evening because the play really sucked. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #27 October 27, 2006 I just did a quick search and it was a guy named Mark Oaten. When the act that he paid prostitutes to do to him was listed as something "too revolting to describe" it says something. You gotta ask yourself, "What is too revolting for a British tabloid to describe?" My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #28 October 27, 2006 I gripe about his environmental record because his is a freakin joke....there is a balance that can protect species.. the environment and still not hurt our economy... I am far from being a tree hugger.. but dammit I want my grandkids to have clean air.. and water that you can drink... and or NOT have them have to show up for a full body radiation scan because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time like I was near Hanford Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,602 #29 October 27, 2006 Quotedropping Cleveland Steamers on prostitutesI'd never heard that expression. I don't think I'll be using it in casual conversation to learn it well, though Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #30 October 27, 2006 QuoteQuotedropping Cleveland Steamers on prostitutesI'd never heard that expression. I don't think I'll be using it in casual conversation to learn it well, though Wendy W. Never too old to learn new vocabulary, even if it is vile.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DZJ 0 #31 October 28, 2006 QuoteI just did a quick search and it was a guy named Mark Oaten. When the act that he paid prostitutes to do to him was listed as something "too revolting to describe" it says something. You gotta ask yourself, "What is too revolting for a British tabloid to describe?"Funnily enough, he did spring to mind as the juiciest recent scandal, but I think I lost something in translation. To be honest that whole hoo-hah around that was extremely distasteful - I despise the tabloid press (I'd be amazed to discover that they have any kind of standards) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Royd 0 #32 October 28, 2006 QuoteAnd get rid of the 18th century landowners special... the Electoral College as well.. if we are going to support democracy.. then lets get on with it and have one here at home. To quote Neal Boortz, "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #33 October 28, 2006 QuoteTo quote Neal Boortz, "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner." Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote! --Benjamin FranklinMath tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #34 October 28, 2006 Quote Come on!!! The Equal Rights Amendment was an attempt to rewrite the Constitution. Article V of the Constitution reads in part, "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution..." To suggest that following Constitutional procedure is a violation of the oath of office is silly. the key difference being that the ERA was an attempt to guarantee rights to a block of citizens (more than half of them). The attempt to ban marriage is taking rights away. If I'm not mistaken, there's only one amendment that did that and it had to be repealed a few years later. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #35 October 28, 2006 QuoteQuote[Incidentally, do I detect an oh-so-subtle anti-Republican theme emerging...?] D'ya think? It's hard for the minority party to enjoy the feeding trough. Unless they're trading votes, it's the party with the majority in every subcommittee that makes out like bandits. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #36 October 28, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteWhy do you think I'm a NEO-CON? I guess the constant posts about supporting right wing positions here since you signed up.. MIGHT just have led me to believe you were.... Challenging left wing positions and assertions isn't the same as supporting right wing positions. The world is pretty gray. Oh please, quit. To think you don't support RW agendas is insane. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #37 October 28, 2006 QuoteHell I want them all gone...fire all of them.. if they are not supporting the people who elect them....get rid of them.. D or R.... And get rid of the 18th century landowners special... the Electoral College as well.. if we are going to support democracy.. then lets get on with it and have one here at home. We only demand other 3rd world countries do that, we still have our monarchy/totalitarian form. I liked Leno a while back when they were trying to write their Const. He said, "You can have ours, we haven;t used it in quite a while." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jenfly00 0 #38 October 28, 2006 QuoteWhy do you think I'm a NEO-CON? "O wad some Power the giftie gie us To see oursels as ithers see us!" -Robert Burns----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 3 #39 October 28, 2006 I really don't see what all the fuss is about. http://www.acitydiscount.com/Cleveland-Range-Counter-Top-Electric-Steamer-New-Cleveland-SteamCub-ISCEMCS208.0.46611.1.1.htm?PPCID=8&link=13-050-826 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #40 October 28, 2006 QuoteQuoteWhy do you think I'm a NEO-CON? "O wad some Power the giftie gie us To see oursels as ithers see us!" -Robert Burns That's good. "if it waddles and quacks like a duck" explanation, but yours is way more erudite.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #41 October 28, 2006 QuoteThe attempt to ban marriage is taking rights away. No, it is an attempt to give a new right that wasn't in existence previously. There is no right to marriage in the US Constitution - be it same sex or heterosexual. The definition of marriage and the requirements for it come down to the individual states - there is no federal family code! IF a state wants to give the right to gay marriage, there's nothing in the Federal Constitution that says they cannot. Likewise, there is nothing in the Federal Constitution that says they can. In matters where the Federal Constitution is silent, states can do what they want - ban or give. For example, while there is no explicit right to privacy in the Federal Constitution, there IS an explicit right to privacy in the California State Constitution. The Federal Constitution just says what rights CANNOT be abridged - a floor that individual states are free to add to. By the way, the last time the Consitution took a right away was in 1992, when the 27th Amendment took away the rights of Legislatures to give themselves immediate pay raises. People didn't bitch about that because it was a political question everyone could agree with. And in 1964, the 24th Amendment took away the ability of the States to use a poll tax. Oh, and in 1951, the 22nd Amendment took away the right to be president for more than two terms. While I disagree WHOLEHEARTEDLY from a political and philosophical sense with any amendment banning gay marriage, from a federal political perspective, a Constitutional Amendment is the only way to do it. In other words, it is absolutely ludicrous for Pelosi to say that it violates the oath of office to propose a Constitutional Amendment. An intellectually honest person would say, "It's a fucked up idea, but at least she's going about it using the correct procedure." But to expect intellectual honesty from a politican... My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #42 October 28, 2006 QuoteQuoteThe attempt to ban marriage is taking rights away. No, it is an attempt to give a new right that wasn't in existence previously. There is no right to marriage in the US Constitution - be it same sex or heterosexual. The definition of marriage and the requirements for it come down to the individual states - there is no federal family code! Sometimes I suspect people forget those inalienable rights with which we are endowed by our creator. The Constitution does not HAVE to give us the right to marry!... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #43 October 28, 2006 QuoteSometimes I suspect people forget those inalienable rights with which we are endowed by our creator. The Constitution does not HAVE to give us the right to marry! I'm glad you brought that up, Prof. First, that was the Declaration of Independence. When it was discovered that the Articles of Confederation weren't working well, a new system was devised and approved in 1787. Second - that's what the anti-slavery crowd said, as well as the women's suffrage crowd. It took (you guessed it!) Constitutional Amendments to allow that to happen (the 15th in 1870 and the 19th in 1920, respectively). Third - the 9th and 1th Amendments have been thrown to the trash heap of jurispridence, thanks to the advocates of the "living breathing Constitution." First, John, as a political and philosophical matter, I agree that there are certain rights that are not listed in the Constitution. The problem is that the SCOTUS, from the 1930's through the 1960's, didn't use such things as the 9th and 10th Amendments, which provide that the STATES can give these rights. Why, we have courts that are in the habit of saying that Federal NON-protection of rights usurps the states' grants of certain rights. It turns out that elite thinkers believed that backwards states like in the Red Belt have it all backward, and there is no reason why gun-toting, redneck peckerwoods should be allowed to decide what's best for them. This is the progressive school of thought. So, the thinking was that the rights of states to do what the thought was best for them shoul be curtailed. It's too hard to get Constitutional Amendments passed, you know. Sure, they can get people to stand behind things like emancipation and suffrage. They can get people to stand behind the right to vote without a poll tax. But not behind other issues that they think are important. Police powers are given to the state in the Constitution. The 9th and 10th Amendments give the states the right to do things the way they want. Michigan gives freedom of contract? How dare they? Workers should be paid a minimum wage with an 8 hour workday. THerefore, in order to secure our way of thought, we'll pass FEDERAL legislation under the Commerce Clause, and pack the courts with like-minded individuals. Thus, the 9th and the 10th were scrapped. Instead of finding the rights to be inherent under the 9th Amendment (which would give credibility to the rights of the states), instead they'll use Due Process in the 5th and 14th Amendments! The 14th applied the Constitutional protections to the states - a huge UP YOURS that the states bought into. To give more flexibility, the SCOTUS started the doctrine of "penumbra" of rights to find them. Otherwise legitimate reasons to find these right, which would reiterate state powers, should be scrapped because the states might not want to play ball. IT's a tricky thing, John, and you and I both agree with it. The problem is that, thanks to 70 years of progressive SCOTUS jurisprudence, these crystal clear ideas are now muddied in the interest of a strong federal government. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #44 October 28, 2006 Well, judging by Bush's speeches over the last couple of days, the anti-gay agenda is all the GOP has going for it right now with its core constituency. I guess they've forgotten Foley already. The real issues (war, deficit, social security, healthcare) are all losers for them.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #45 October 28, 2006 QuoteQuoteThe attempt to ban marriage is taking rights away. No, it is an attempt to give a new right that wasn't in existence previously. There is no right to marriage in the US Constitution - be it same sex or heterosexual. The definition of marriage and the requirements for it come down to the individual states - there is no federal family code! Paragraph 1 of the XIV Amendment of the US Constitution states: Quote1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Are you saying the benefits of marriage are not privileges of the married citizens?Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #46 October 28, 2006 Quote No, it is an attempt to give a new right that wasn't in existence previously. There is no right to marriage in the US Constitution - be it same sex or heterosexual. The definition of marriage and the requirements for it come down to the individual states - there is no federal family code! It's a bullshit argument, but even accepting it, this amendment would make sure they never have that right. It's still a negative amendment. Quote By the way, the last time the Consitution took a right away was in 1992, when the 27th Amendment took away the rights of Legislatures to give themselves immediate pay raises. People didn't bitch about that because it was a political question everyone could agree with. And in 1964, the 24th Amendment took away the ability of the States to use a poll tax. Oh, and in 1951, the 22nd Amendment took away the right to be president for more than two terms. wow, definitely lawyerly spinning at work here. States don't have rights, people do. Poll taxes were all about taking away rights. Just like bans on gay marriage. These amendments benefit the people, outside of the 2 term limit which with one exception, has been our standing tradition. It still benefits the people not to have Reagan or Clinton in office for 4 terms. You would have done better to cite the amendment for income taxes. But I don't see legalizing a means to pay for the services the people want and demand as a loss in rights either. So it leaves us with prohibition, a total disaster. A ban on gay marriage wouldn't end as badly, but in 100 years would be as embarassing as the 3/5ths compromise. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #47 October 29, 2006 QuoteStates don't have rights, people do. A nice political thought, but the TenthAmendment says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." It turns out they both do. States have rights, too. So your argument, sir, is in error. Incorrect. Wron-go! Finished! Kaput! Of course, lawyerly spinning is at work here. Why, we lawyers tend to think that words have meaning! If the Tenth Amendment says that rights are reserved to the states, my legal education has caused me to believe it means it. So, I guess I'll defer to you in temrs of construction. What, sir, do you think they meant when they said that "rights are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people?" I guess that's where that $120k in student loans got me - before law school, I would have thought that it guarantees rights to the people, and that "rights are reserved to the States, respectively" actually means the opposite - that they MEANT to say "no rights are reserved to the States." I apologize for actually looking at the meaning of words. I guess that makes me a "strict constructionist" asshole. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #48 October 29, 2006 QuoteQuoteStates don't have rights, people do. A nice political thought, but the TenthAmendment says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." It turns out they both do. States have rights, too. So your argument, sir, is in error. Incorrect. Wron-go! Finished! Kaput! Of course, lawyerly spinning is at work here. Why, we lawyers tend to think that words have meaning! If the Tenth Amendment says that rights are reserved to the states, my legal education has caused me to believe it means it. So, I guess I'll defer to you in temrs of construction. What, sir, do you think they meant when they said that "rights are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people?" I guess that's where that $120k in student loans got me - before law school, I would have thought that it guarantees rights to the people, and that "rights are reserved to the States, respectively" actually means the opposite - that they MEANT to say "no rights are reserved to the States." I apologize for actually looking at the meaning of words. I guess that makes me a "strict constructionist" asshole. The Constitution appears to make a distinction between rights and powers. States did not have rights reserved; they had powers reserved. Similar, but different. People had both rights and powers reserved.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #49 October 29, 2006 Well, shit. Dirty lawyer tricks you used. I'll give you that point... My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #50 October 29, 2006 QuoteWell, shit. Dirty lawyer tricks you used. I'll give you that point... Thanks. I actually read that document three or four times a year.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
