"State Rights" is a CODE WORD
Doug Bashford
Rush Limbaugh:
"Voters who voted yesterday believe that
Republicans are 'the big government party' now.
How can you blame them?"
-- Rush Limbaugh November 8, 2006
"Finding it difficult to reconcile Republican rhetoric
with their actions? Maybe you just aren't speaking
the same language."
States' rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
4 Contemporary debates; 5 States' rights as "code word" ...
became bedrock documents of Jefferson's Democratic-Republican
Party. ..... The term "states' rights," some have argued, was
used as a code word by defenders of segregation. ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States'_rights - Cached - Similar
Lott, Reagan and Republican Racism - TIME
Dec. 14, 2002
The sad truth is that many Republican leaders remain in a massive
state of ... for "states' rights" � a code word for resistance to
black advances clearly ...
Space doesn't permit a complete list of the Gipper's signals to
angry white folks that Republicans prefer to ignore, so two
incidents in which Lott was deeply involved will have to suffice.
As a young congressman, Lott was among those who urged Reagan to
deliver his first major campaign speech in Philadelphia,
Mississippi, where three civil rights workers were murdered in
one of the 1960s' ugliest cases of racist violence. It was a
ringing declaration of his support for "states' rights" � a code
word for resistance to black advances clearly understood by white
Southern voters. ...
www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,399921,00.html - Similar
#
GOP race mongering on Sotomayor - The Boston Globe
Jun 2, 2009 ... a Republican Party that has been the party of
racial code words ever ... Reagan's "state's rights" speech in
Mississippi, and President ...
#
GOP Race Mongering on Sotomayor | CommonDreams.org
... it comes to a Republican Party that has been the party of
racial code words ... Reagan's "state's rights" speech in
Mississippi, and President George W. ...
www.commondreams.org/view/2009/06/02-2 - Cached - Similar
#
John Oxendine: GOP Gubernatorial Candidate Joins Perry States ...
Apr 29, 2009 ... For the second time in as many weeks, a
Republican gubernatorial candidate in the ... and more likely a
not so subtle code word for racism and hate ... the repub's
clarion call is "state's rights" when a dem holds the ...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/29/john-oxendine-gop-guberna_n_193003.html
- Cached - Similar
============================
Any other CODE WORDs come to mind?
Pandagon :: What was that about Republican successes? :: August
..
�Small government� and �states rights� were code words back in
the day for ... there are virtually no republican successes I can
think of since Bush took ...
http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2006/08/09/what-was-that-about-republican-successes/
Republican Code Words
Here you will find more translations for such circumstances when
their words are not as they seem. We call them, Republican Code
Words. ...
"Traditional Values"
Hating gays, lynching blacks, demonizing foreigners, shun the
poor, forced motherhood, white supremacy, greed,...
"Big Government"
Government programs that help "those" people
www.bennettstar.com/pages/republican_code.htm -
The GOP-to-English Dictionary: Cracking the Republican Code,
Jun 6, 2002 ... Finding it difficult to reconcile Republican
rhetoric with their actions? Maybe you just aren't speaking the
same language. ... Simply substitute any words you encounter from
the left-hand column with ...
www.democraticunderground.com/articles/02/06/06_dictionary.html
Deciphering their racist code words | SocialistWorker.org
Sep 17, 2008 ... The Republican convention was filled with thinly
veiled racist ... of racist code words, aimed at stoking bigotry
among white voters. ...
http://socialistworker.org/2008/09/17/deciphering-their-racism -
Robert of St Louis
States rights "unless" a neocon deems them to be immoral i.e. gay
marriages, end of life issues, women's rights etc.
Doug Bashford
in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, On Mon, 29 Jun, Mr.B1ack said about:
Re: "State Rights" is a CODE WORD
> (Doug Bashford) wrote:
>
> > Rush Limbaugh:
> > "Voters who voted yesterday believe that
> > Republicans are 'the big government party' now.
> > How can you blame them?"
> > -- Rush Limbaugh November 8, 2006
> >
> > "Finding it difficult to reconcile Republican rhetoric
> > with their actions? Maybe you just aren't speaking
> > the same language."
>
> Well, you've gotta admit that, at least in THAT case,
> Rush WAS right - the GOP inflated govt size, price
> and power worse than the last three DNC administrations.
>
> Pretty disheartening.
>
>
> >http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_q=code+words+republican+%22state+rights%22&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&num=10&lr=&as_filetype=&ft=i&as_sitesearch=&as_qdr=all&as_rights=&as_occt=any&cr=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&safe=images
> >
> >States' rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> >4 Contemporary debates; 5 States' rights as "code word" ...
> >became bedrock documents of Jefferson's Democratic-Republican
> >Party. ..... The term "states' rights," some have argued, was
> >used as a code word by defenders of segregation. ...
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States'_rights - Cached - Similar
>
> 'Segregation' and the psychology behind it is dead and gone -
Certainly bussing and others are a dead issue.
That was part of my point. None of the code
terms I mentioned are still owned by Repubs.
Take the SCOTUS decision that slaps Obama's nomination.
Pure Republican judicial activist judges legislating
from the bench (the whole law drastically changed)
in order to overrule the locally elected folks' descision
and impose federal rule and to slap Obama around.
> except with a few 'liberals' who make their living trying
> to re-light the cold embers ... esp Jackson & Sharpton.
> In truth, Condi Rice - black, female, probably gay - would
> have beaten McCain in the GOP primaries if she'd run.
>
> The last of the olde-tyme white-hoods are busy kicking
> the bucket. Forget about them.
They and the new racists, the leather-wearing doper
punk/skinheads hate each other. So?
> After Obama there IS
> no more 'race card' to play. Even the 'gay card' is
> getting kinda dog-eared ...
No, there are too many Republican latent homosexuals
(homophobes). But that goes for too many Republican
latent crooks and scumbags too. Your Party attracts
them for many reasons, among them: that's the crowd
you recruit to...the Larry (armpits) the Cable guys,
the greed-is-gooders, and the frightened, etc...
...basically the no-character scumbag types.
Bush was a perfect example. It's so bad,
the scum at the bottom of the barel has
risen to the top. Who are your leaders?
Polls say the Drugster and Blow Job Newt.
>
> 'Liberals' will just have to come up with something new.
Yup. And
You're lookin at it pal.
Yer a few years late. Your Culture of Corruption
lost you the last two elections.
> Problem ... I don't think todays 'libs' are as creative
> as their fathers generation. They'll just embarass
> themselves ....
Then I like being embarassed.
Keep it up.
Robert of St Louis
Doug I don't recall you posting here before the last couple of days.
I very much like your insight and style. Which is not to say I will
not disagree with you some day and throw stones at you.
tv
> States rights "unless" a neocon deems them to be immoral i.e. gay
> marriages, end of life issues, women's rights etc.
States should have the right to vote in same sex marriage and abortion
on demand as law. That's how neocons and Conservatives would have it.
Courts should have the right to force States to have same sex
marriages and abortion on demand. That's how Liberals would have it.
I favor the former and am opposed to the latter.
Tempest
> marriages, end of life issues, women's rights etc.
Or increasing fuel mileage like California tried to do.
Johnny Tremane
"tv" <tjwils...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8f04d05f-9e31-4ee4...@y9g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
=======
Oh really? You wouldn't ever understand that a liberal wants freedoms for
every American if a box of Limbaugh stupid hit you on your head.
If one person's freedoms are trampled on, we are all threatened.
Dank 110100100
> States' rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 4 Contemporary debates; 5 States' rights as "code word" ...
> became bedrock documents of Jefferson's Democratic-Republican
> Party. ..... The term "states' rights," some have argued, was
> used as a code word by defenders of segregation. ...
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States'_rights- Cached - Similar
What's interesting is how the left uses "states' rights" as
justification for state medical marijuana laws. The left also invokes
states' rights when it comes to same-sex marriage - at least when it
comes to those states that have legalized gay marriage.
>
> Lott, Reagan and Republican Racism - TIME
> Dec. 14, 2002
> The sad truth is that many Republican leaders remain in a massive
> state of ... for "states' rights" — a code word for resistance to
> black advances clearly ...
> Space doesn't permit a complete list of the Gipper's signals to
> angry white folks that Republicans prefer to ignore, so two
> incidents in which Lott was deeply involved will have to suffice.
> As a young congressman, Lott was among those who urged Reagan to
> deliver his first major campaign speech in Philadelphia,
> Mississippi, where three civil rights workers were murdered in
> one of the 1960s' ugliest cases of racist violence. It was a
> ringing declaration of his support for "states' rights" — a code
> word for resistance to black advances clearly understood by white
> Southern voters. ...
> www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,399921,00.html- Similar
>
> #
> GOP race mongering on Sotomayor - The Boston Globe
> Jun 2, 2009 ... a Republican Party that has been the party of
> racial code words ever ... Reagan's "state's rights" speech in
> Mississippi, and President ...
>
> www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/06/02...
> Similar
>
> #
> GOP Race Mongering on Sotomayor | CommonDreams.org
> ... it comes to a Republican Party that has been the party of
> racial code words ... Reagan's "state's rights" speech in
> Mississippi, and President George W. ...
> www.commondreams.org/view/2009/06/02-2- Cached - Similar
>
> #
> John Oxendine: GOP Gubernatorial Candidate Joins Perry States ...
> Apr 29, 2009 ... For the second time in as many weeks, a
> Republican gubernatorial candidate in the ... and more likely a
> not so subtle code word for racism and hate ... the repub's
> clarion call is "state's rights" when a dem holds the ...
>
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/29/john-oxendine-gop-guberna_n_...
> - Cached - Similar
>
> ============================
>
> Any other CODE WORDs come to mind?
>
> Pandagon :: What was that about Republican successes? :: August
> ..
> “Small government” and “states rights” were code words back in
> the day for ... there are virtually no republican successes I can
> think of since Bush took ...
>
> http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2006/08/09/what-was-that-about-republica...
5024 Dead, 157 since 1/20/09
> On Jun 29, 1:02 pm, see.my....@theBeach.edu (Doug Bashford) wrote:
>> States' rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 4 Contemporary
>> debates; 5 States' rights as "code word" ... became bedrock documents
>> of Jefferson's Democratic-Republican Party. ..... The term "states'
>> rights," some have argued, was used as a code word by defenders of
>> segregation. ...
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States'_rights- Cached - Similar
>
> What's interesting is how the left uses "states' rights" as
> justification for state medical marijuana laws. The left also invokes
> states' rights when it comes to same-sex marriage - at least when it
> comes to those states that have legalized gay marriage.
That's one of the little magic bits the Constitution sets up: freedoms
in individual states may EXCEED those at the federal level, but they can
never be less.
--
"Well I think that they say that Rush Limbaugh is the 800 lb. gorilla in
the Republican Party. But I think that's mean-spirited to say that. ...
Because, I think he's down to 650 lbs. I think one should be fair to him
about this whole thing." -- Arnold Schwarzenegger
--
"Well I think that they say that Rush Limbaugh is the 800 lb. gorilla in
the Republican Party. But I think that's mean-spirited to say that. ...
Because, I think he's down to 650 lbs. I think one should be fair to him
about this whole thing." -- Arnold Schwarzenegger
Gray Ghost
news:lcudnbhEbc1RktTX...@pghconnect.com:
> race_mongering_on_sotomayor/ Similar
>
> #
> GOP Race Mongering on Sotomayor | CommonDreams.org
> ... it comes to a Republican Party that has been the party of
> racial code words ... Reagan's "state's rights" speech in
> Mississippi, and President George W. ...
> www.commondreams.org/view/2009/06/02-2 - Cached - Similar
>
> #
> John Oxendine: GOP Gubernatorial Candidate Joins Perry States ...
> Apr 29, 2009 ... For the second time in as many weeks, a
> Republican gubernatorial candidate in the ... and more likely a
> not so subtle code word for racism and hate ... the repub's
> clarion call is "state's rights" when a dem holds the ...
>
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/29/john-oxendine-gop-guberna_n_19300
> 3.html - Cached - Similar
Yes Doug, any rights except the right of the federal govenrment to do
whatever the Hell it wants and to tax us all to support it is secretly
racist.
What a maroon.
--
Always remember:
Bull Connor was a Democrat!
Gray Ghost
b48f-a10...@b9g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
>
>
> States rights "unless" a neocon deems them to be immoral i.e. gay
> marriages, end of life issues, women's rights etc.
>
Say what you mean Bobby, you mean "Jew" don't you?
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
"5024 Dead, 157 since 1/20/09" wrote:
>
> On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 18:20:15 -0700, Dank 110100100 wrote:
>
> > On Jun 29, 1:02� pm, see.my....@theBeach.edu (Doug Bashford) wrote:
> >> States' rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 4 Contemporary
> >> debates; 5 States' rights as "code word" ... became bedrock documents
> >> of Jefferson's Democratic-Republican Party. ..... The term "states'
> >> rights," some have argued, was used as a code word by defenders of
> >> segregation. ...
> >> � http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States'_rights- Cached - Similar
> >
> > What's interesting is how the left uses "states' rights" as
> > justification for state medical marijuana laws. The left also invokes
> > states' rights when it comes to same-sex marriage - at least when it
> > comes to those states that have legalized gay marriage.
>
> That's one of the little magic bits the Constitution sets up: freedoms
> in individual states may EXCEED those at the federal level, but they can
> never be less.
>
What might that mean? It would seem to mean that you disallow
Congress the right to regulate anything. But Congress does have
essentially plenary power to regulate under the Commerce Clause
amoung other means:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plenary_power
#begin quote
[T]he power of the United States Congress under Article I, Section
8, Clause 3, (the Commerce Clause). Because Congress is granted
absolute power over interstate commerce, the Supreme Court has
found that states may not pass laws that affect interstate commerce
unless the U.S. Congress gives them permission to do so.
#end quote
If this means that the Congress can regulate machineguns, it also
means it can regulate the weed your pothead friends grow.
--
I heard Clinton buried a time capsule at his new presidential
library sized like an overseas shipping container filled with stuff
he didn't want anyone to find till long after his death, the real
deed to Whitewater, the envelope for the Tyson Foods chicken
payoffs, the real gun he used to whack Foster, the keys to the
Exocet missile he took Ron Brown out with, copies of another few
thousand illegally acquired FBI files on his enemies, tickets to
Tahiti from the White House Travel Office, a few more soiled
dresses, a couple of cases of well chewed Cuban cigars, and the
unabridged version of his autobiography. That last one was touch
and go just getting the bugger in.
Mitchell Holman
77d456...@y9g2000yqg.googlegroups.com:
Modern Conservative: Someone who can take time
out from asking the feds to halt state recounts,
blocking state officials from suing gun makers,
dictating state marriage laws and overturning
local ballot initiatives to lecture us about the
sanctity of "states' rights".......
5024 Dead, 157 since 1/20/09
recirculation' ) wrote:
> "5024 Dead, 157 since 1/20/09" wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 18:20:15 -0700, Dank 110100100 wrote:
>>
>> > On Jun 29, 1:02Â pm, see.my....@theBeach.edu (Doug Bashford) wrote:
>> >> States' rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 4 Contemporary
>> >> debates; 5 States' rights as "code word" ... became bedrock
>> >> documents of Jefferson's Democratic-Republican Party. ..... The term
>> >> "states' rights," some have argued, was used as a code word by
>> >> defenders of segregation. ...
>> >> Â http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States'_rights- Cached - Similar
>> >
>> > What's interesting is how the left uses "states' rights" as
>> > justification for state medical marijuana laws. The left also
>> > invokes states' rights when it comes to same-sex marriage - at least
>> > when it comes to those states that have legalized gay marriage.
>>
>> That's one of the little magic bits the Constitution sets up: freedoms
>> in individual states may EXCEED those at the federal level, but they
>> can never be less.
>>
> What might that mean? It would seem to mean that you disallow Congress
> the right to regulate anything. But Congress does have essentially
> plenary power to regulate under the Commerce Clause amoung other means:
I would love to see you explain the thinking that led to that
conclusion. Why would I disallow Congress it's power to regulate?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plenary_power #begin quote
> [T]he power of the United States Congress under Article I, Section 8,
> Clause 3, (the Commerce Clause). Because Congress is granted absolute
> power over interstate commerce, the Supreme Court has found that states
> may not pass laws that affect interstate commerce unless the U.S.
> Congress gives them permission to do so. #end quote
>
> If this means that the Congress can regulate machineguns, it also means
> it can regulate the weed your pothead friends grow.
So how about nuclear weapons, Bill? Up to the states to regulate?
Lookout
<s...@california.net> wrote:
>
>"tv" <tjwils...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:8f04d05f-9e31-4ee4...@y9g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
>On Jun 29, 12:11 pm, Robert of St Louis <free.tun...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> States rights "unless" a neocon deems them to be immoral i.e. gay
>> marriages, end of life issues, women's rights etc.
>
>States should have the right to vote in same sex marriage
Wrong. Marriage is a contract that MUST be binding in all states
therefore it MUST be, and will be a federal law soon.
Lookout
<dan...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>On Jun 29, 1:02�pm, see.my....@theBeach.edu (Doug Bashford) wrote:
>> States' rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
>> 4 Contemporary debates; 5 States' rights as "code word" ...
>> became bedrock documents of Jefferson's Democratic-Republican
>> Party. ..... The term "states' rights," some have argued, was
>> used as a code word by defenders of segregation. ...
>> �http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States'_rights- Cached - Similar
>
>What's interesting is how the left uses "states' rights" as
>justification for state medical marijuana laws. The left also invokes
>states' rights when it comes to same-sex marriage - at least when it
>comes to those states that have legalized gay marriage.
Marriage is legally binding contract. It MUST be a federal law..and
will be soon enough.
None4U
"5024 Dead, 157 since 1/20/09" <de...@dead.com> wrote in message
news:29ednT83t5i37dTX...@posted.carinet...
> On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 18:20:15 -0700, Dank 110100100 wrote:
>
>> On Jun 29, 1:02 pm, see.my....@theBeach.edu (Doug Bashford) wrote:
>>> States' rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 4 Contemporary
>>> debates; 5 States' rights as "code word" ... became bedrock documents
>>> of Jefferson's Democratic-Republican Party. ..... The term "states'
>>> rights," some have argued, was used as a code word by defenders of
>>> segregation. ...
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States'_rights- Cached - Similar
>>
>> What's interesting is how the left uses "states' rights" as
>> justification for state medical marijuana laws. The left also invokes
>> states' rights when it comes to same-sex marriage - at least when it
>> comes to those states that have legalized gay marriage.
>
> That's one of the little magic bits the Constitution sets up: freedoms
> in individual states may EXCEED those at the federal level, but they can
> never be less.
>>> The 16th and 17th ammendement reversed this setup. Creating the
>>> centralized federal government we know today to be more powrful then any
>>> state.
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Lott, Reagan and Republican Racism - TIME
>>> Dec. 14, 2002
>>> The sad truth is that many Republican leaders remain in a massive state
>>> of ... for "states' rights" - a code word for resistance to black
>>> advances clearly ...
>>> Space doesn't permit a complete list of the Gipper's signals to
>>> angry white folks that Republicans prefer to ignore, so two incidents
>>> in which Lott was deeply involved will have to suffice. As a young
>>> congressman, Lott was among those who urged Reagan to deliver his first
>>> major campaign speech in Philadelphia, Mississippi, where three civil
>>> rights workers were murdered in one of the 1960s' ugliest cases of
>>> racist violence. It was a ringing declaration of his support for
>>> "states' rights" - a code word for resistance to black advances clearly
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
"5024 Dead, 157 since 1/20/09" wrote:
>
> On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 03:11:59 +0100, Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of
> recirculation' ) wrote:
>
> > "5024 Dead, 157 since 1/20/09" wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 18:20:15 -0700, Dank 110100100 wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Jun 29, 1:02Â pm, see.my....@theBeach.edu (Doug Bashford) wrote:
> >> >> States' rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 4 Contemporary
> >> >> debates; 5 States' rights as "code word" ... became bedrock
> >> >> documents of Jefferson's Democratic-Republican Party. ..... The term
> >> >> "states' rights," some have argued, was used as a code word by
> >> >> defenders of segregation. ...
> >> >> Â http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States'_rights- Cached - Similar
> >> >
> >> > What's interesting is how the left uses "states' rights" as
> >> > justification for state medical marijuana laws. The left also
> >> > invokes states' rights when it comes to same-sex marriage - at least
> >> > when it comes to those states that have legalized gay marriage.
> >>
> >> That's one of the little magic bits the Constitution sets up: freedoms
> >> in individual states may EXCEED those at the federal level, but they
> >> can never be less.
> >>
> > What might that mean? It would seem to mean that you disallow Congress
> > the right to regulate anything. But Congress does have essentially
> > plenary power to regulate under the Commerce Clause amoung other means:
>
> I would love to see you explain the thinking that led to that
> conclusion. Why would I disallow Congress it's power to regulate?
>
"its power"
You are saying that the *only* regulation that can exist is lesser
at the federal level than at the state level. This would mean that
the states set the level of regulation, not the Congress.
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plenary_power #begin quote
> > [T]he power of the United States Congress under Article I, Section 8,
> > Clause 3, (the Commerce Clause). Because Congress is granted absolute
> > power over interstate commerce, the Supreme Court has found that states
> > may not pass laws that affect interstate commerce unless the U.S.
> > Congress gives them permission to do so. #end quote
> >
> > If this means that the Congress can regulate machineguns, it also means
> > it can regulate the weed your pothead friends grow.
>
> So how about nuclear weapons, Bill? Up to the states to regulate?
>
But I don't agree with your analysis.
Doug Bashford
in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, Robert of St Louis said about:
>
> Doug I don't recall you posting here before the last couple of days.
> I very much like your insight and style. Which is not to say I will
> not disagree with you some day and throw stones at you.
Thanks! If you do throw stones, all I ask from
anybody is to back them up some, as I do with
either facts or argument. ...rarely are they
full arguments, but at least they are places
from which to start a conversation or reasonable
debate... something testable.
In my opinion, disagreements come from one of
two places: wrong facts, or different values.
Discovering which; concludes the debate.
Mostly I find "wrong facts," if it gets that far.
Cuz Americans have very similar values.
As you may have noticed, "arguments" that are
pure unsupported asertions - I think have no
reason to exist - any animal can grunt out its
displeasure.
Doug Bashford
in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, On Mon, 29 Jun 2009, Mr.B1ack said
about:
Re: "State Rights" is a CODE WORD
> But, if you disagree with him, doesn't that mean you're
> a corrupt, homophobic, racist, kloset-kweer Republican ? :-)
Only if all he can do is parrot corrupt, homophobic, racist,
kloset-kweer Republican talking points.
But he sounds too thoughtful for that.
It sounds like he's EARNED his opinions.
If so, he would be almost incapable of parroting
mindless talking points.
Doug Bashford
in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009, Gray Ghost said about:
> (Doug Bashford) wrote:
>
> >
> > Rush Limbaugh:
> > "Voters who voted yesterday believe that
> > Republicans are 'the big government party' now.
> > How can you blame them?"
> > -- Rush Limbaugh November 8, 2006
> >
> > "Finding it difficult to reconcile Republican rhetoric
> > with their actions? Maybe you just aren't speaking
> > the same language."
.......snip
> Yes Doug, any rights except the right of the federal govenrment to do
> whatever the Hell it wants and to tax us all to support it is secretly
> racist.
No. Get off the drugs.
>
> What a maroon.
Why yes I am. Thank you! -- Maroon- noun:
an exploding firework used as a warning signal
Thanks for your support.
Gray Ghost
A term of derision often uttered by Bugs Bunny when referring to an
interaction with a dopey adversary. It is a mispronunciation of the word
"Moron"
"What a Maroon!" "Will ya get a load of this maroon"
David J. Hughes
> On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 18:20:15 -0700 (PDT), Dank 110100100
> <dan...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jun 29, 1:02 pm, see.my....@theBeach.edu (Doug Bashford) wrote:
>>> States' rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
>>> 4 Contemporary debates; 5 States' rights as "code word" ...
>>> became bedrock documents of Jefferson's Democratic-Republican
>>> Party. ..... The term "states' rights," some have argued, was
>>> used as a code word by defenders of segregation. ...
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States'_rights- Cached - Similar
>> What's interesting is how the left uses "states' rights" as
>> justification for state medical marijuana laws. The left also invokes
>> states' rights when it comes to same-sex marriage - at least when it
>> comes to those states that have legalized gay marriage.
>
> Marriage is legally binding contract. It MUST be a federal law..and
> will be soon enough.
Why? No other personal contract law is Federal.
And marriage may not be a binding contract, depending on circumstances.
Filing a intent to form a civil union (applying for a marriage license),
and then doing so (filing the marriage license), is a binding contract.
David J. Hughes
>
Wikipedia is once again incorrect.
Congress has limited power to regulate interstate commerce, not
absolute. The limits appear in Article I, Section 9 of the USC.
The National Firearms Act of 1934, and all subsequent legislation based
on it, appears to be an unconstitutional restriction on interstate
commerce, being a tax on items exported from one state and imported to
another.
Such a tax is forbidden by the USC.
David Johnston
Well not it isn't. Move to another state and it will no longer be
recognised and hence not binding.
David J. Hughes
Any state failing to accept a valid contract from another state is in
violation of Article IV, Section 1 of the USC.
That's why some people are pushing for the "Marriage Amendment" to the USC.
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Where was it incorrect before?
> Congress has limited power to regulate interstate commerce, not
> absolute. The limits appear in Article I, Section 9 of the USC.
>
They can't regulate in violation of other parts of the
constitution. One part of the constitution doesn't get construed to
mean that another part doesn't have effect.
> The National Firearms Act of 1934, and all subsequent legislation based
> on it, appears to be an unconstitutional restriction on interstate
> commerce, being a tax on items exported from one state and imported to
> another.
>
> Such a tax is forbidden by the USC.
>
Cite the case law.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/195/27/case.html
#begin quote 195 U.S. 27, 56
In the @ 72 U. S. 471):
"It is true that the power of Congress to tax is a very extensive
power. It is given in the Constitution with only one exception and
only two qualifications. Congress cannot tax exports, and it must
impose direct taxes by the rule of apportionment and indirect taxes
by the rule of uniformity. Thus, limited, and thus only, it reaches
every subject, and may be exercised at discretion. "
Page 195 U. S. 57
In @ 74 U. S. 443):
"Congress may prescribe the basis, fix the rates, and require
payment as it may deem proper. Within the limits of the
Constitution, it is supreme in its action. No power of supervision
or control is lodged in either of the other departments of the
government."
And after referring to the express limitations as to uniformity and
articles exported from any State, it was remarked (p. 74 U. S.
446):
"With these exceptions, the exercise of the power is, in all
respects, unfettered."
In @ 74 U. S. 699) that "the right of taxation, where it exists, is
necessarily unlimited in its nature. It carries with it inherently
the power to embarrass and destroy."
Yet again, in @ 75 U. S. 548):
"It is insisted, however, that the tax in the case before us is
excessive, and so excessive as to indicate a purpose on the part of
Congress to destroy the franchise of the bank, and is, therefore,
beyond the constitutional power of Congress."
"The first answer to this is that the judicial cannot prescribe to
the legislative departments of the government limitations upon the
exercise of its acknowledged powers. The power to tax may be
exercised oppressively upon persons, but the responsibility of the
legislature is not to the courts, but to the people by whom its
members are elected. So if a particular tax bears heavily upon a
corporation, or a class of corporations, it cannot, for that reason
only, be pronounced contrary to the Constitution. "
Page 195 U. S. 58
True it is, as argued, that the opinion in that case rested the
conclusion not alone upon the doctrine just quoted, but also upon
the principle that Congress possessed the power to suppress the
circulation of the notes of state banks as an incident to the
authority concerning the currency delegated to Congress by the
Constitution. But whilst this argument may weaken the authoritative
force of the statement made in the case in question as to the want
of power in the judiciary to examine into motive, it does not
affect the persuasive and inherent force of the reasoning by which
that view was sustained. Besides, the doctrine has since been
affirmed.
In Spencer v. Merchant, 125 U. S. 346, 125 U. S. 355, speaking
through Mr. Justice Gray, it was said:
"In the words of Chief Justice Chase, condensing what had been said
long before by Chief Justice Marshall,"
"The judicial department cannot prescribe to the legislative
department limitations upon the exercise of its acknowledged
powers. The power to tax may be exercised oppressively upon
persons, but the responsibility of the legislature is not to the
courts, but to the people by whom its members are elected."
In Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U. S. 41, the cases which have been
referred to were approvingly cited, and the doctrine which they
expressed was restated.
In Treat v. White, 181 U. S. 264, referring to a stamp duty levied
by Congress, it was observed (p. 181 U. S. 269):
"The power of Congress in this direction is unlimited. It does not
come within the province of this court to consider why agreements
to sell shall be subject to the stamp duty and agreements to buy
not. It is enough that Congress, in this legislation, has imposed a
stamp duty upon the one, and not upon the other."
In Patton v. Brady, 184 U. S. 608, considering another stamp duty
levied by Congress, it was again said (p. 194 U. S. 623):
"That it is no part of the function of a court to inquire into the
reasonableness of the excise, either as respects the amount or the
property upon which it is imposed. "
Page 195 U. S. 59
It being thus demonstrated that the motive or purpose of Congress
in adopting the acts in question may not be inquired into, we are
brought to consider the contentions relied upon to show that the
acts assailed were beyond the power of Congress, putting entirely
out of view all considerations based upon purpose or motive.
#end quote
David Johnston
<davidjh...@netzero.com> wrote:
Since it isn't valid under their laws, no.
David J. Hughes
Due to its nature, Wikipedia is often incorrect.
The articles frequently have poor use of grammar, opinions expressed as
fact, and on occasion erroneous data.
>
>
>> Congress has limited power to regulate interstate commerce, not
>> absolute. The limits appear in Article I, Section 9 of the USC.
>>
> They can't regulate in violation of other parts of the
> constitution. One part of the constitution doesn't get construed to
> mean that another part doesn't have effect.
>
Then you agree that Congress's ability to regulate interstate commerce
is not absolute.
>
>> The National Firearms Act of 1934, and all subsequent legislation based
>> on it, appears to be an unconstitutional restriction on interstate
>> commerce, being a tax on items exported from one state and imported to
>> another.
>>
>> Such a tax is forbidden by the USC.
>>
> Cite the case law.
To the best of my knowledge (which is why I used the word "appears"),
no challenge to NFA 1934 has ever been made under Article I, Section 9
"No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state. "
As exports and imports apply to commerce between states as well as
commerce with other countries, by a strict reading of the USC Congress
has the power to regulate, but not tax interstate commerce.
IMO, the USSC has not always ruled based on a strict enough reading of
the USC.
David J. Hughes
Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the
public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And
the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such
acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
Not much wiggle room there.
A legal contract (by definition, a public act) in one state is legal in
all states.
Curly Surmudgeon
> Due to its nature, Wikipedia is often incorrect. The articles frequently
> have poor use of grammar, opinions expressed as fact, and on occasion
> erroneous data.
Due to its nature, Wikipedia is constantly updated, corrected, and
expanded so that it rapidly approaches many nines. Even as it stands,
wikipedia is much more expansive and accurate than any other American
English encyclopedia in existence.
Plus the "opinions expressed as fact" are clearly noted with requests for
further input and help.
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://tinyurl.com/lpcbrm
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Johnston
<davidjh...@netzero.com> wrote:
But the contract is not legal in states that don't allow civil unions.
Strabo
1. All states 'allow' civil unions but most don't recognize the state as
a party, hence such unions have no legal standing.
2. If it is a valid contract, it is a contract that obligates others not
party to the contract. If it is not a contract then the point is
moot.
David J. Hughes
All marriage licenses issued in the US are civil unions. Not all civil
unions are marriage licenses.
No state does not allow civil unions (such as those performed with out
benefit of clergy by a JP).
SOME states are attempting to deny certain subgroups of civil unions
filed in other states from being recognized outside the states where
they were filed.
This appears to be a violation of the US Constitution.
There is a movement to pass an amendment to the USC (often called the
Marriage Amendment) to change the USC to permit a specific exception to
the USC.
All versions of such and amendment I have seen fall, IMO, under the
umbrella of "BAD Law". Badly written, don't do what their supporters
claim (or do potentially far more than claimed), or affect too many
other sections of the USC.
IMO, the simplest solution requires one change, not the the
Constitution, but to US Code.
The change is in the section on definitions:
"Marriage, for the purposes of this code, is defined as a civil union
between two or more consenting adults."
David J. Hughes
> On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 20:06:10 -0500, "David J. Hughes"
>
>> Due to its nature, Wikipedia is often incorrect. The articles frequently
>> have poor use of grammar, opinions expressed as fact, and on occasion
>> erroneous data.
>
> Due to its nature, Wikipedia is constantly updated, corrected, and
> expanded so that it rapidly approaches many nines. Even as it stands,
> wikipedia is much more expansive and accurate than any other American
> English encyclopedia in existence.
>
> Plus the "opinions expressed as fact" are clearly noted with requests for
> further input and help.
>
On pop culture, nearly always.
On any subject where there are strong opinions, check other sources as
well, don't rely only on what some possibly biased person submitted.
Gray Ghost
news:0N54m.14029$wE4....@newsfe02.iad:
Since you want every state to give full faith and credit to the marriage
licenses granted in the other states, I'll assume you are also for the
requirement that all states must accept a Concealed Carry permit issued in
another state without reservation, meaning total reciprocity. Meaning all
states and jurisdictions, even where it is difficult to impossible to get a
handgun let alone a CCW, must recognize a valid CCW issued by another state.
RD (The Sandman)
news:Xns9C3F920043796We...@216.196.97.142:
Yep......throw me in that briar patch..... ;)
--
Sleep well, tonight........
RD (The Sandman)
" All experience is great provided you live through it.
If it kills you, you have gone too far."
Painter Alice Neel, in the New Yorker.
Gray Ghost
news:Xns9C3F766D3...@216.196.97.130:
I'm willing to give them civil unions in exchange for universal and
unrestricted CCW. Let's see how well the left takes it. They of course will
want it only thier way, becoming the obstacle, like in the DC voting rights
siuation. Once again the Democrats were standing in the doorway of the voting
booth keeping minorities out.
Gunner Asch
Works for me.
Gunner Asch
"Lenin called them "useful idiots," those people living in
liberal democracies who by giving moral and material support
to a totalitarian ideology in effect were braiding the rope that
would hang them. Why people who enjoyed freedom and prosperity worked
passionately to destroy both is a fascinating question, one still with us
today. Now the useful idiots can be found in the chorus of appeasement,
reflexive anti-Americanism, and sentimental idealism trying to inhibit
the necessary responses to another freedom-hating ideology, radical Islam"
Bruce C. Thornton, a professor of Classics at American University of Cal State Fresno
David Johnston
<davidjh...@netzero.com> wrote:
Since there's a federal law denying recognition to homosexual civil
unions, that's already done deal so far as I know.
Gunner Asch
wrote:
But there are State Laws making it Legal. And since marriage is a
state/local issue, hardly a Federal one...
Gunner
David J. Hughes
I think that's a perfectly reasonable idea, but it's not the same thing.
A marriage license is a contract, and falls under contract law, clearly
a matter of public record.
A CCW permit may be a license, in the same way that driver's license is,
and a matter of public record that should be recognized by all states.
It may be, instead, a permit, similar to a hunting permit, and would
only be valid in the issuing state, and any states that allow the use of
an out-of-state hunting permit.
Depends on the requirements and applicable legislation of the issuing
states.
David J. Hughes
Federal law is subordinate to the Constitution.
Such a law can be challenged on several different Constitutional violations.
Gray Ghost
First
Article IV.
Sect. 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the public
act, records, and judicial proceedings of every other State. And the Congress
may, by general laws, prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and
proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
Second, marriage may be a "contract" between the 2 parties, but the state
issues a license.
A CCW would in fact meet the defintion of "public act, records, and judicial
proceedings". Congress apparently could legislate the manner in which a valid
CCW could be "proved" but likely any such effort, given Congress's penchant
for over regulating and screwing things up, would be better if stillborn. It
would seem that the driver's license model is the one to use here.
Driver's licenses are in general accepted in any state without regard to the
issuing states particular requirements.
Gray Ghost
news:XMc4m.28673$ml7....@newsfe18.iad:
I have my Constitution open from answering the last question. Which articel
or amendment do you think could be relied on to overturn such a law?
Penumbras and emmanations not included.
RD (The Sandman)
RD (The Sandman)
Gray Ghost
Sometimes you just get the imagery right.
Gray Ghost
> On Sun, 05 Jul 2009 12:54:02 -0500, "David J. Hughes"
you mean DOMA? Not really.
U.S.C. � 1738C. The law has two effects:
No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe,
shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial
proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a
relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage
under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a
right or claim arising from such relationship.
Where does it say same sex marriages are illegal?
BTW Liberal hero Bill Clinton signed it. The Obamessiah after campaigning on
it's repeal, on June 12, 2009 the Department of Justice issued a brief
defending the constitutionality of DOMA in the case of Smelt v. United States
of America, signaling a sharp reversal by the Obama administration.
It isn't illegal and DOMA appears to be favored by the 2 most recent Democrat
presidents. What could be wrong with it?
David Johnston
<rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>All marriage licenses issued in the US are civil unions. Not all
>>>civil unions are marriage licenses.
>>>No state does not allow civil unions (such as those performed with out
>>>benefit of clergy by a JP).
>>>SOME states are attempting to deny certain subgroups of civil unions
>>>filed in other states from being recognized outside the states where
>>>they were filed.
>>
>> Since there's a federal law denying recognition to homosexual civil
>> unions, that's already done deal so far as I know.
>>
>
>What law is that?
The Defense of Marriage Act.
David Johnston
I didn't say anything about "illegal". I said "denying recognition".
In states that don't have gay civil unions, the unions of other states
are not recognised. They don't exist legally. Further more, the
Federal government itself does not recognize the existence of any such
union because that's the second effect. Hence the full faith clause
is being held not to apply to apply to any such "contract".
>
>BTW Liberal hero Bill Clinton signed it.
So what?
RD (The Sandman)
And that has been proven constitutional how?
David Johnston
<rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote in
>news:9qk555liua8bfekc4...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Mon, 06 Jul 2009 17:25:59 -0500, "RD (The Sandman)"
>> <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>All marriage licenses issued in the US are civil unions. Not all
>>>>>civil unions are marriage licenses.
>>>>>No state does not allow civil unions (such as those performed with
>out
>>>>>benefit of clergy by a JP).
>>>>>SOME states are attempting to deny certain subgroups of civil unions
>>>>>filed in other states from being recognized outside the states where
>>>>>they were filed.
>>>>
>>>> Since there's a federal law denying recognition to homosexual civil
>>>> unions, that's already done deal so far as I know.
>>>>
>>>
>>>What law is that?
>>
>> The Defense of Marriage Act.
>>
>
>And that has been proven constitutional how?
In court
http://www.domawatch.org/cases/9thcircuit/InreKanduBkrDecision.pdf
David Johnston
Has been, and those challenges have been rejected. The current status
quo is one in which the federal government and most states do not
recognise the existence of gay unions as a legal entity.
RD (The Sandman)
Thanks for the case cite. However, I may have missed it but where in
that case does it deny recognition to homosexual *civil unions*. I see
where that act states that marriage is between a man and a woman, but I
don't see where it addresses civil unions......your statement above.
RD (The Sandman)
> On Sun, 05 Jul 2009 20:51:45 -0500, "David J. Hughes"
> <davidjh...@netzero.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>> All marriage licenses issued in the US are civil unions. Not all
>>>> civil unions are marriage licenses.
>>>> No state does not allow civil unions (such as those performed with
>>>> out benefit of clergy by a JP).
>>>> SOME states are attempting to deny certain subgroups of civil
>>>> unions filed in other states from being recognized outside the
>>>> states where they were filed.
>>>
>>> Since there's a federal law denying recognition to homosexual civil
>>> unions, that's already done deal so far as I know.
>>
>>
>>Federal law is subordinate to the Constitution.
>>Such a law can be challenged on several different Constitutional
>>violations.
>
> Has been, and those challenges have been rejected.
That 9th circuit case was on the term "marriage" on a marriage performed
in Canada. It was not about the term "civil union". Do you have a case
which supports your contention above that there is a federal law denying
recognition to civil unions?
> The current status
> quo is one in which the federal government and most states do not
> recognise the existence of gay unions as a legal entity.
And this status quo comes from where? Unless I missed it, it isn't the
case you cited.
http://www.domawatch.org/cases/9thcircuit/InreKanduBkrDecision.pdf
Here, locally, for example, gay civil unions are recognized by city
government for pay and rights that would be extended to married couples.
David Johnston
<rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote in
>news:5tg755p9ksab5ftg9...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Sun, 05 Jul 2009 20:51:45 -0500, "David J. Hughes"
>> <davidjh...@netzero.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>> All marriage licenses issued in the US are civil unions. Not all
>>>>> civil unions are marriage licenses.
>>>>> No state does not allow civil unions (such as those performed with
>>>>> out benefit of clergy by a JP).
>>>>> SOME states are attempting to deny certain subgroups of civil
>>>>> unions filed in other states from being recognized outside the
>>>>> states where they were filed.
>>>>
>>>> Since there's a federal law denying recognition to homosexual civil
>>>> unions, that's already done deal so far as I know.
>>>
>>>
>>>Federal law is subordinate to the Constitution.
>>>Such a law can be challenged on several different Constitutional
>>>violations.
>>
>> Has been, and those challenges have been rejected.
>
>That 9th circuit case was on the term "marriage" on a marriage performed
>in Canada.
No , it wasn't. It was about whether they could file a joint tax
return.
>
>Here, locally, for example, gay civil unions are recognized by city
>government for pay and rights that would be extended to married couples.
Um...so?
David Johnston
<rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
That was what those two people had. It was not recognised as
legitimate.
I see
>where that act states that marriage is between a man and a woman, but I
>don't see where it addresses civil unions......your statement above.
Powers reserved to the states:
No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian
tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or
judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or
tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that
is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State,
territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such
relationship.
A civil union is a relationship that is treated as a marriage.
David J. Hughes
Article I Section 8
Article I Section 9
Article III Section 2
Article IV Section 1
Article IV Section 2
Amendment I
Amendment IX
Amendment XIV
Amendment XIX
Which might apply would depend on the precise circumstances of the case,
of course.
If you mean specifically the DOMA (U.S.C. � 1738C), it appears to be in
direct violation of Article IV, Section 1.
RD (The Sandman)
I didn't ask what those two people had. I asked you where the law
denying civil unions per your statement. You still have not answered
that.
> I see
>>where that act states that marriage is between a man and a woman, but I
>>don't see where it addresses civil unions......your statement above.
>
> Powers reserved to the states:
>
> No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian
> tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or
> judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or
> tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that
> is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State,
> territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such
> relationship.
>
> A civil union is a relationship that is treated as a marriage.
IOW, you feel that cities giving that type of recognition to city
employess is unconstitutional and illegal? If so, why isn't it being
pursued in cities where that occurs?
RD (The Sandman)
> On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 17:28:29 -0500, "RD (The Sandman)"
> <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote in
>>news:5tg755p9ksab5ftg9...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Sun, 05 Jul 2009 20:51:45 -0500, "David J. Hughes"
>>> <davidjh...@netzero.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> All marriage licenses issued in the US are civil unions. Not all
>>>>>> civil unions are marriage licenses.
>>>>>> No state does not allow civil unions (such as those performed with
>>>>>> out benefit of clergy by a JP).
>>>>>> SOME states are attempting to deny certain subgroups of civil
>>>>>> unions filed in other states from being recognized outside the
>>>>>> states where they were filed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since there's a federal law denying recognition to homosexual civil
>>>>> unions, that's already done deal so far as I know.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Federal law is subordinate to the Constitution.
>>>>Such a law can be challenged on several different Constitutional
>>>>violations.
>>>
>>> Has been, and those challenges have been rejected.
>>
>>That 9th circuit case was on the term "marriage" on a marriage
performed
>>in Canada.
>
> No , it wasn't. It was about whether they could file a joint tax
> return.
That was a question before that court, yes. However the historical
discussion and dicta regarded the term "marriage" not the term "civil
union".
In other words, I am still waiting for your cite on your statement about
federal law denying civil unions.
>>Here, locally, for example, gay civil unions are recognized by city
>>government for pay and rights that would be extended to married
couples.
>
> Um...so?
You think that city government trumps federal law?
David Johnston
<rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
But marriages (which are registered with the state government) are
civil unions.
>
>In other words, I am still waiting for your cite on your statement about
>federal law denying civil unions.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/1738C.html
No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian
tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or
judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or
tribe _respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that
is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State_,
territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such
relationship.
What kind of relationship between persons of the same sex exists that
is not a marriage, but is _treated as a marriage_?
>
>>>Here, locally, for example, gay civil unions are recognized by city
>>>government for pay and rights that would be extended to married
>couples.
>>
>> Um...so?
>
>You think that city government trumps federal law?
I think that federal law only protects the power of states and the
federal government to ignore the existence of civil unions if they so
choose. If they don't so choose, the law in question has nothing to
say about it. The law does not ban civil unions. It says the federal
government does recognise them and that any state that does not
perform them need not recognize the civil unions of any other state
under their laws. Even then the _city_ government would be free to
recognize civil unions as much as it wants. It could give city
benefits to pet owners if it wanted to, same as corporations could.
David Johnston
<rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Powers reserved to the states:
>>
>> No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian
>> tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or
>> judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or
>> tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that
>> is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State,
>> territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such
>> relationship.
>>
>> A civil union is a relationship that is treated as a marriage.
>
>IOW, you feel that cities giving that type of recognition to city
>employess is unconstitutional and illegal?
No. I feel that you demonstrating an inability to read a paragraph
that, as laws go, is unusually clear and straightforward in it's
meaning. "No State shall be required" does not mean "No State shall
be allowed"
RD (The Sandman)
Then you agree that there is no federal law denying same sex civil
unions. Thank you.
--
Sleep well, tonight........
RD (The Sandman)
The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you
run out of other people's money.
Margaret Thatcher - February 5, 1976
RD (The Sandman)
But not all civil unions are marriages. Marriage is originally a
religious term and one which is still driven by conservative agenda to
prevent homosexual life partners from having the same rights as
heterosexual couples.
>>In other words, I am still waiting for your cite on your statement
about
>>federal law denying civil unions.
>
> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/1738C.html
>
>
> No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian
> tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or
> judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or
> tribe _respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that
> is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State_,
> territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such
> relationship.
>
> What kind of relationship between persons of the same sex exists that
> is not a marriage, but is _treated as a marriage_?
Civil unions could qualify here but that would depend on state and local
laws.
>>>>Here, locally, for example, gay civil unions are recognized by city
>>>>government for pay and rights that would be extended to married
>>couples.
>>>
>>> Um...so?
>>
>>You think that city government trumps federal law?
>
> I think that federal law only protects the power of states and the
> federal government to ignore the existence of civil unions if they so
> choose. If they don't so choose, the law in question has nothing to
> say about it. The law does not ban civil unions.
Thank you. That was my only comment. You had said that federal law
denied civil unions to homosexuals. My point was there is no law that I
am aware of that denies those civil unions.
It says the federal
> government does recognise them and that any state that does not
> perform them need not recognize the civil unions of any other state
> under their laws. Even then the _city_ government would be free to
> recognize civil unions as much as it wants. It could give city
> benefits to pet owners if it wanted to, same as corporations could.
Yep. So there is no federal law denying civil unions to homosexuals.
Thank you.
--
Sleep well, tonight........
RD (The Sandman)
David Johnston
<rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>> No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian
>> tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or
>> judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or
>> tribe _respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that
>> is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State_,
>> territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such
>> relationship.
>>
>> What kind of relationship between persons of the same sex exists that
>> is not a marriage, but is _treated as a marriage_?
>
>Civil unions could qualify here but that would depend on state and local
>laws.
What's the other kind of civil union?
>> I think that federal law only protects the power of states and the
>> federal government to ignore the existence of civil unions if they so
>> choose. If they don't so choose, the law in question has nothing to
>> say about it. The law does not ban civil unions.
>
>Thank you. That was my only comment. You had said that federal law
>denied civil unions to homosexuals.
No, I hadn't.
David Johnston
<rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote in
>news:lpfc559366sdurm1p...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 12:46:51 -0500, "RD (The Sandman)"
>> <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> Powers reserved to the states:
>>>>
>>>> No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian
>>>> tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or
>>>> judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or
>>>> tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that
>>>> is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State,
>>>> territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from
>such
>>>> relationship.
>>>>
>>>> A civil union is a relationship that is treated as a marriage.
>>>
>>>IOW, you feel that cities giving that type of recognition to city
>>>employess is unconstitutional and illegal?
>>
>> No. I feel that you demonstrating an inability to read a paragraph
>> that, as laws go, is unusually clear and straightforward in it's
>> meaning. "No State shall be required" does not mean "No State shall
>> be allowed"
>>
>
>Then you agree that there is no federal law denying same sex civil
>unions.
No, I don't.
RD (The Sandman)
You haven't produced one. All you have produced is that if one state has
civil unions, another state is not required via federal law to recognize
it.
RD (The Sandman)
Hmmm,
You stated on July 6th in :
> Since there's a federal law denying recognition to homosexual civil
> unions, that's already done deal so far as I know.
I asked:
What law is that?
You then tried to claim that DOMA did.
It appears that your memory is as short as your dick.
David Johnston
<rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
No. That's just your inability to read. There is in fact a
difference between denying civil unions to homosexuals and denying
_recognition_ to the civil unions of homosexuals. You have
consistently been trying to distort what I said into something else.
But I said what I said. Not what you want me to have said.
David Johnston
<rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
And the Federal government itself will not recognize it. Therefore
there is a federal law denying same sex civil unions.
Strabo
<snipped>
>>>>>>> Federal law is subordinate to the Constitution.
>>>>>>> Such a law can be challenged on several different Constitutional
>>>>>>> violations.
>>>>>> Has been, and those challenges have been rejected.
>>>>> That 9th circuit case was on the term "marriage" on a marriage
>>> performed
>>>>> in Canada.
>>>> No , it wasn't. It was about whether they could file a joint tax
>>>> return.
>>> That was a question before that court, yes. However the historical
>>> discussion and dicta regarded the term "marriage" not the term "civil
>>> union".
>> But marriages (which are registered with the state government) are
>> civil unions.
>
> But not all civil unions are marriages. Marriage is originally a
> religious term and one which is still driven by conservative agenda to
> prevent homosexual life partners from having the same rights as
> heterosexual couples.
>
A reminder of definitions.
What 'rights'? All Americans share the same BOR. Homosexuals have the
same rights as heterosexuals.
Marriage was and is the ritual process of publicly bonding a male and
a female for purposes of procreation and establishing a family.
From the dawn of time every society known to date, from the most
primitive to the most sophisticated, has had a form of marriage.
Homosexuality has no relationship to heterosexuality, marriage
or procreation. One may as well argue that welders have a 'right'
to marry; or Masons; or baseball players.
If you want to argue hospital visitation regulations, etc.,
do so, but don't confuse apples with oranges.
A reminder of definitions.
A 'private union' is a contract outside of government auspices. A
church official can perform a private ceremony. However few will
recognize this contract unless it is registered with a state. This
is called a 'marriage license'. A license is a permission to what
is otherwise illegal. What is illegal about marriage that requires
a license?
I'll bet your grandparents didn't have to have a marriage license.
Such an intrusion into private life was unknown until the late 1800s.
A 'civil union' is a *government sponsored contract*. It goes beyond
registration or certification. Government becomes the purveyor and
maintainer of the contract.
Law can create most any kind of contract however, one can successfully
argue that US governments have *no authority* to require a marriage
certificate. For this reason most legal jurisdictions today refuse to
marry people. Instead they skirt the law and offer magistrates and
a license.
Totally screwed up.
RD (The Sandman)
Then post it. Don't quibble.
RD (The Sandman)
And it was posted right up there. sorry.
RD (The Sandman)
news:KXA5m.1407$yk5...@newsfe02.iad:
No, they don't. If you are a homosexual life partner try to visit your
loved on in the ICU when access is limited to immediate family only. If
your loved one dies, try to collect on the government insurance policy.
> Marriage was and is the ritual process of publicly bonding a male and
> a female for purposes of procreation and establishing a family.
However there are other ways of doing that. I doubt that neaderthals had
a marriage ceremony.
> From the dawn of time every society known to date, from the most
> primitive to the most sophisticated, has had a form of marriage.
A form, yes. The term "marriage" has religious overtones and any attempt
to change that fires up the religious right.
> Homosexuality has no relationship to heterosexuality, marriage
> or procreation. One may as well argue that welders have a 'right'
> to marry; or Masons; or baseball players.
If that is your opinion. Do you have a problem with welders, Masons, or
baseball players getting married? If not, then, by your own definition,
why do you have a problem with homosexuals getting married?
> If you want to argue hospital visitation regulations, etc.,
> do so, but don't confuse apples with oranges.
Don't try to tell me what to do unless you wish to spend time in a bit
bucket.
However, a civil union is not. A civil union would be used to get that
recognition without using the term "marriage".
A
> church official can perform a private ceremony. However few will
> recognize this contract unless it is registered with a state. This
> is called a 'marriage license'. A license is a permission to what
> is otherwise illegal. What is illegal about marriage that requires
> a license?
The real purpose of the license is to ensure blood tests so that problems
don't arise in the future. It is not to allow couples to cohabitate.
David Johnston
<rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/1/7.html
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling,
regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus
and agencies of the United States, the word �marriage� means only a
legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the
word �spouse� refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a
husband or a wife.
RD (The Sandman)
Good definition of marriage.....unfortunately that isn't what the
discussion was about.
David Johnston
Yes it is. The effect of that provision is to deny all Federal
benefits to homosexual (but not heterosexual) "civil unions" just as
the effect of the other provision is to say that states don't have to
acknowledge civil unions even if they were legally contracted in other
states.
RD (The Sandman)
Not as long as it is termed a "civil union" or some other term and not a
"marriage". Not as long as the partner is termed a "partner" or other
term and not a "spouse". The effect of that provision is exclusive. It
does not include terms other than those noted. It only defined the terms
"marriage" and "spouse" for the meaning of an Act of Congress, etc..
Let me ask you this. Do you have a problem with gays being recognized
as life partners with all onuses, obligations, rights and privileges of a
heterosexual marriage as long as the term "marriage" and "spouse" are not
used?
Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:
Which is a clear violation of the 14th Amendment.
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If George Bush had a soul it would be damned
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RD (The Sandman)
news:pan.2009.07...@live.com:
And the Full Faith and Credit Clause.
David Johnston
<rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>Good definition of marriage.....unfortunately that isn't what the
>>>discussion was about.
>>
>> Yes it is. The effect of that provision is to deny all Federal
>> benefits to homosexual (but not heterosexual) "civil unions" just as
>> the effect of the other provision is to say that states don't have to
>> acknowledge civil unions even if they were legally contracted in other
>> states.
>>
>
>Not as long as it is termed a "civil union" or some other term and not a
>"marriage". Not as long as the partner is termed a "partner" or other
>term and not a "spouse". The effect of that provision is exclusive. It
>does not include terms other than those noted. It only defined the terms
>"marriage" and "spouse" for the meaning of an Act of Congress, etc..
>
>Let me ask you this. Do you have a problem with gays being recognized
>as life partners with all onuses, obligations, rights and privileges of a
>heterosexual marriage as long as the term "marriage" and "spouse" are not
>used?
No, I don't, but my opinion is of no consequence whatsoever. All I
was doing was stating the legal facts of the situation, and those
facts are that they are legally barred from any such status,
regardless of whether their union is called a marriage or "life
partnership". Challenges to that status quo in court have already
been denied by the courts, and it's my bet that won't change any time
soon.
RD (The Sandman)
> On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 16:36:30 -0500, "RD (The Sandman)"
> <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>>>Good definition of marriage.....unfortunately that isn't what the
>>>>discussion was about.
>>>
>>> Yes it is. The effect of that provision is to deny all Federal
>>> benefits to homosexual (but not heterosexual) "civil unions" just as
>>> the effect of the other provision is to say that states don't have
>>> to acknowledge civil unions even if they were legally contracted in
>>> other states.
>>>
>>
>>Not as long as it is termed a "civil union" or some other term and not
>>a "marriage". Not as long as the partner is termed a "partner" or
>>other term and not a "spouse". The effect of that provision is
>>exclusive. It does not include terms other than those noted. It only
>>defined the terms "marriage" and "spouse" for the meaning of an Act of
>>Congress, etc..
>>
>>Let me ask you this. Do you have a problem with gays being
>>recognized as life partners with all onuses, obligations, rights and
>>privileges of a heterosexual marriage as long as the term "marriage"
>>and "spouse" are not used?
>
> No, I don't,
Good.
> but my opinion is of no consequence whatsoever.
It does give indication of where you are coming from therefore is of
interest.
> All I
> was doing was stating the legal facts of the situation,
As you know them.
> and those
> facts are that they are legally barred from any such status,
> regardless of whether their union is called a marriage or "life
> partnership".
You have not shown that except through your own definitions of what was
meant. You haven't explained Massachussets. How do they do it if the
feds say that they are legally barred? All you showed was that the feds
have no requirement for other states to recognize that marriage.
> Challenges to that status quo in court have already
> been denied by the courts, and it's my bet that won't change any time
> soon.
Please show some verifiable denials.
Day Brown
>>> to homosexual (but not heterosexual) "civil unions" just as the effect
>>> of the other provision is to say that states don't have to acknowledge
>>> civil unions even if they were legally contracted in other states.
>> Which is a clear violation of the 14th Amendment.
>>
>
> And the Full Faith and Credit Clause.
One of the ways empires decline is that they still have the outward
forms, but ever greater autonomy exists outside the great power centers.
For hundreds of years, Byzantine emperors sent out the badges of office
to local warlords who like the trappings, as if they were still part of
the empire.
So, its a damn moot point, whether the Feds will pick up the tab for CA,
MS, NY, or wherever, and it'll be up to the individual states whether
they will choose to recognize the official acts of other states. In a
similar way, Obama has tried to get the feds out of enforcing marijuana
law, or turning a blind eye to whatever a state chooses to do about the
illegals it has.
There's long been postings about the coming dissolution of the Untied
States of Denial, but it need not result in anarchy. You get to vote
with your feet, or a U-haul, to whatever state you think is run the way
you want. Which has some constitutional support.
David Johnston
<rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
They don't do it. The unions contracted in Massachussetts mean
nothing as far as the federal government is concerned.
All you showed was that the feds
>have no requirement for other states to recognize that marriage.
>
>> Challenges to that status quo in court have already
>> been denied by the courts, and it's my bet that won't change any time
>> soon.
>
>Please show some verifiable denials.
Wilson versus Ake
In re Kandu
RD (The Sandman)
$ec3e...@news.usenetmonster.com:
And this has exactly what to do with this part of the thread discussing
homosexual marriages or civil unions? The only salient point is that the
feds have declared that other states need not recognize gay marriages
from another state. That, in itself, leaves that recognition up to the
other states.
RD (The Sandman)
Never claimed different. What you have shown is that the feds have
declared that other states are not required to recognize the gay
marriages from other states. That should leave it up to the other states
since what you showed did not deny the states the power to do that if
they wished.
> All you showed was that the feds
>>have no requirement for other states to recognize that marriage.
>>
>>> Challenges to that status quo in court have already
>>> been denied by the courts, and it's my bet that won't change any time
>>> soon.
>>
>>Please show some verifiable denials.
>
> Wilson versus Ake
> In re Kandu
Have a URL?
David Johnston
<rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>Let me ask you this. Do you have a problem with gays being
>>>>>recognized as life partners with all onuses, obligations, rights and
>>>>>privileges of a heterosexual marriage as long as the term "marriage"
>>>>>and "spouse" are not used?
>>>>
>>>> No, I don't,
>>>
>>>Good.
>>>
>>>> but my opinion is of no consequence whatsoever.
>>>
>>>It does give indication of where you are coming from therefore is of
>>>interest.
>>>
>>>> All I
>>>> was doing was stating the legal facts of the situation,
>>>
>>>As you know them.
>>>
>>>> and those
>>>> facts are that they are legally barred from any such status,
>>>> regardless of whether their union is called a marriage or "life
>>>> partnership".
>>>
>>>You have not shown that except through your own definitions of what was
>>>meant. You haven't explained Massachussets. How do they do it if the
>>>feds say that they are legally barred?
>>
>> They don't do it. The unions contracted in Massachussetts mean
>> nothing as far as the federal government is concerned.
>
>Never claimed different.
And they are legally barred from "gays being
recognized as life partners with all onuses, obligations, rights and
privileges of a heterosexual marriage as long as the term "marriage"
and "spouse" are not used?"
As long as the law isn't changed, that can't happen.
>> All you showed was that the feds
>>>have no requirement for other states to recognize that marriage.
>>>
>>>> Challenges to that status quo in court have already
>>>> been denied by the courts, and it's my bet that won't change any time
>>>> soon.
>>>
>>>Please show some verifiable denials.
>>
>> Wilson versus Ake
>> In re Kandu
>
>Have a URL?
http://www.domawatch.org/circuitissues/eleventhcircuit/wilsonvake.html
http://www.domawatch.org/circuitissues/ninthcircuit/inrekandu.html
Bert Hyman
see.m...@theBeach.edu (Doug Bashford) wrote:
> States' rights
Code word(s)?
Well, it's certainly easier than quoting the full text of the 9th and
10th amendments to the Constitution every time the subject comes up.
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN be...@iphouse.com
RD (The Sandman)
Federally. Can still happen by state. There is no federal law denying
that.
>>> All you showed was that the feds
>>>>have no requirement for other states to recognize that marriage.
>>>>
>>>>> Challenges to that status quo in court have already
>>>>> been denied by the courts, and it's my bet that won't change any
>>>>> time soon.
>>>>
>>>>Please show some verifiable denials.
>>>
>>> Wilson versus Ake
>>> In re Kandu
>>
>>Have a URL?
>
> http://www.domawatch.org/circuitissues/eleventhcircuit/wilsonvake.html
>
> http://www.domawatch.org/circuitissues/ninthcircuit/inrekandu.html
>
Thanks.
Bert Hyman
wrote:
> Hymen-
Do you really have to go out of your way to remind everybody what a jerk
you are?
Phlip
> Marriage is legally binding contract. It MUST be a federal law..and
> will be soon enough.
On this map...
http://pfarley.livejournal.com/#post-pfarley-105081
You are at the cell "Civil unions should be sufficient". Note the
response is "civil unions don't offer legal kinship".
Next move?