Welcome to FinHeaven Fans Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.



VIP Members don't see these ads. Join VIP Now
Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 2345678 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 72

Thread: Romney Cheated in Debate?

  1. -61
    Buddy's Avatar
    Starter

    Status:
    Online
    WPA:
    Join date:
    May 2004
    Posts:
    3,956
    vCash:
    15764
    Loc:
    Victoria, TX
    Thanks / No Thanks

    Re: Romney Cheated in Debate?

    Quote Originally Posted by Locke View Post
    The definition of a self-made man is starting from nothing and ending with everything you want. How does Obama not fit that description...?
    That is not my definition but to each his own. He definitely has a knack for being in the right place at the right time and capitalizing on the situation. I still think he is an awful president that never should have been nominated much less elected but I give him kudos for being Mr.Right Now when Mr. Right wasn't available. I assure you though that the man has had some very serious support along the way that bears no resemblance to "grass roots".

    Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
    Quote Quote  

  2. -62
    TheWalrus's Avatar
    1/7/14

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2011
    Posts:
    9,172
    vCash:
    37493
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Buddy View Post
    No, but I do want the least amount of regulation possible to encourage as much interstate commerce possible. Like I said earlier, there is a role for the Federal Government but it is far, far less than what we have today. That is one of the things that sets the US apart is the rights of the states and decentralization of power. We are moving toward a very centralized power and I detest the thought of it.
    A lack of regulation can just as easily serve as an impediment to interstate trade. It's the chief reason why the Articles of Confederation had to be abolished. The states were starting turf wars with each other over trade and the federal government had little power to regulate.

    I honestly don't think that decentralization and states rights is what sets the US apart. Europe, even now, is very decentralized and each country has great sway over what happens within their borders. What does that lead to? Disorganization, disunity, waste, corruption, petty squabbles over nothing. They can't get together and decide what to do with Greece. They argue every time sanctions against this country or that are proposed in the UN because one country or another will have a trade agreement with the country to be sanctioned. It's a cluster****.

    Another good example is modern day India, where the central government is essentially powerless and all the power rests with the provinces. As a result, their infrastructure is a joke -- the traffic in India is among the worst in the world -- and there's no leadership on a federal level to mediate disputes or prosecute abuses and corruption by businesses.

    What sets the US apart is a balance between state power and federal power. The superceding power of the federal government is both wise and necessary to prevent regional squabbling and to ensure the rights of citizens guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be challenged by local mandate. But it is also wise that certain tasks are left to the states, where the proximity to variables can help produce the best results.

    This phrase "as little regulation as possible" doesn't really have any meaning, implying as it does that I, for example, want more regulation than is necessary. We just have different ideas of what is necessary.
    Last edited by TheWalrus; 10-10-2012 at 08:14 PM.
    Quote Quote  

  3. -63
    Buddy's Avatar
    Starter

    Status:
    Online
    WPA:
    Join date:
    May 2004
    Posts:
    3,956
    vCash:
    15764
    Loc:
    Victoria, TX
    Thanks / No Thanks

    Re: Romney Cheated in Debate?

    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus View Post
    A lack of regulation can just as easily serve as an impediment to interstate trade. It's the chief reason why the Articles of Confederation had to be abolished. The states were starting turf wars with each other over trade and the federal government had little power to regulate.

    I honestly don't think that decentralization and states rights is what sets the US apart. Europe, even now, is very decentralized and each country has great sway over what happens within their borders. What does that lead to? Disorganization, disunity, waste, corruption, petty squabbles over nothing. They can't get together and decide what to do with Greece. They argue every time sanctions against this country or that are proposed in the UN because one country or another will have a trade agreement with the country to be sanctioned. It's a cluster****.

    Another good example is modern day India, where the central government is essentially powerless and all the power rests with the provinces. As a result, their infrastructure is a joke -- the traffic in India is among the worst in the world -- and there's no leadership on a federal level to mediate disputes or prosecute abuses and corruption by businesses.

    What sets the US apart is a balance between state power and federal power. The superceding power of the federal government is both wise and necessary to prevent regional squabbling and to ensure the rights of citizens guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be challenged by local mandate. But it is also wise that certain tasks are left to the states, where the proximity to variables can help produce the best results.

    This phrase "as little regulation as possible" doesn't really have any meaning, implying as it does that I, for example, want more regulation than is necessary. We just have different ideas of what is necessary.
    I think that you are very correct in that you propose a logical balance of power between the federal government and the state governments. I do want a strong federal government that is able to maneuver and act decisively within its proper parameters. However, I wholeheartedly disagree with the federal government interfering in business other than to set basic rules for everyone to play by. I don't think that the federal government should be involved in mandating morality, education, abortion, capital punishment, or any of these types of issues. These issues should be decided at the state level.

    Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
    Quote Quote  

  4. -64
    TheWalrus's Avatar
    1/7/14

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2011
    Posts:
    9,172
    vCash:
    37493
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Buddy View Post
    I think that you are very correct in that you propose a logical balance of power between the federal government and the state governments. I do want a strong federal government that is able to maneuver and act decisively within its proper parameters. However, I wholeheartedly disagree with the federal government interfering in business other than to set basic rules for everyone to play by.
    Well, again, we might have different rules about what constitutes "basic." Like you, I only want as many rules as is necessary.

    I'll take this next section one at a time:

    I don't think that the federal government should be involved in mandating morality,
    For instance? The Constitution, and by extension, the federal government, is only interested in rules and laws. Not morality. Are you by chance referring to the involvement of Church in public life? Because that relationship is governed -- contentiously, of course -- by the second amendment.

    education
    So there should be no standards about how long school years are from state to state, or what counts as high school accreditation, or as a college degree, or any of that? This is an area where business actually wants government to interfere, so they can have confidence in the solidity of a college degree without having to do costly the legwork of verifying this or that school for themselves.

    abortion
    The right to for a woman to get an abortion was ruled to be a privacy issue guaranteed by the Constitution. Surely you don't believe that the Constitution should guarantee a right and then have no power to enforce that right.

    capital punishment
    See: the eighth amendment. Are you suggesting we repeal it?

    This notion that as the federal government retreats from an issue, the freedom of people relative to that issue increases, is a complete fallacy, to me. It certainly can be true, but it is by no means always true. The legacy of civil rights, to use one example, is of states and local communities engaging in wholly institutional oppression. It took federal action, based on federally enumerated principles, to free people from that oppression.

    As you remove a federal oppressor, you might only be enabling the creation of a state or local one. And sometimes you can even be removing a protector, without whom you would be at the mercy of an oppressor close by.
    Quote Quote  

  5. -65
    Buddy's Avatar
    Starter

    Status:
    Online
    WPA:
    Join date:
    May 2004
    Posts:
    3,956
    vCash:
    15764
    Loc:
    Victoria, TX
    Thanks / No Thanks

    Re: Romney Cheated in Debate?

    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus View Post
    Well, again, we might have different rules about what constitutes "basic." Like you, I only want as many rules as is necessary.

    I'll take this next section one at a time:



    For instance? The Constitution, and by extension, the federal government, is only interested in rules and laws. Not morality. Are you by chance referring to the involvement of Church in public life? Because that relationship is governed -- contentiously, of course -- by the second amendment.



    So there should be no standards about how long school years are from state to state, or what counts as high school accreditation, or as a college degree, or any of that? This is an area where business actually wants government to interfere, so they can have confidence in the solidity of a college degree without having to do costly the legwork of verifying this or that school for themselves.



    The right to for a woman to get an abortion was ruled to be a privacy issue guaranteed by the Constitution. Surely you don't believe that the Constitution should guarantee a right and then have no power to enforce that right.



    See: the eighth amendment. Are you suggesting we repeal it?

    This notion that as the federal government retreats from an issue, the freedom of people relative to that issue increases, is a complete fallacy, to me. It certainly can be true, but it is by no means always true. The legacy of civil rights, to use one example, is of states and local communities engaging in wholly institutional oppression. It took federal action, based on federally enumerated principles, to free people from that oppression.

    As you remove a federal oppressor, you might only be enabling the creation of a state or local one. And sometimes you can even be removing a protector, without whom you would be at the mercy of an oppressor close by.
    I would love to shoot the bull with you over a couple of beers as you make me think and be accountable with logical and factual banter. Kudos!

    With that, here are my thoughts:

    Morality issues such as gay marriage (first thing i could think of) should be left up to the state. There is no need for an amendment mandating yay or nay. The individual states should decide how, when, and under what circumstances.

    Similarly, i feel the same about abortion. Each state should decide how they want to approach the situation.

    Though I am a devout Southern Baptist, I have no inclination to impose my mortality on anyone else nor do I want anyone imposing their will on me. I do disagree with the extent to which the division of church and state has been carried as I feel that the current interpretation far exceeds the implication in the constitution.

    So far as education, setting basic standards is absolutely necessary but you can't possibly believe that No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top bear any resemblance to setting standards for basic education. The departments of education, energy, environmental protection and all of the czars far exceed the limits and intentions of the constitution.

    You make a great point that the Federal Government and the Constitution are (our at least should be) only interested in rules and law, not morality. I wish that the populous knew more about the constitution and revered it for the true miracle that it is. The further that we depart from it and abuse it, the worse things are going to get.



    Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
    Quote Quote  

  6. -66
    TheWalrus's Avatar
    1/7/14

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2011
    Posts:
    9,172
    vCash:
    37493
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Buddy View Post
    I would love to shoot the bull with you over a couple of beers as you make me think and be accountable with logical and factual banter. Kudos!
    Thanks! I'm always glad when these debates can be civil. If you make it down to SoFla, let me know, and we'll have those beers.

    With that, here are my thoughts:

    Morality issues such as gay marriage (first thing i could think of) should be left up to the state. There is no need for an amendment mandating yay or nay. The individual states should decide how, when, and under what circumstances.

    Similarly, i feel the same about abortion. Each state should decide how they want to approach the situation.
    But why? The federal government has a responsibility to enforce the rights it guarantees. Otherwise, it's not a guarantee. I don't know if you're familiar with Loving v. Virginia, but I think a similar ruling is heading our way regarding gay marriage. With regard to abortion, this was once again ruled to be a violation of the constitutionally guaranteed right to privacy. Do you believe that a state should have the ability to curtail federally protected rights?

    Though I am a devout Southern Baptist, I have no inclination to impose my mortality on anyone else nor do I want anyone imposing their will on me. I do disagree with the extent to which the division of church and state has been carried as I feel that the current interpretation far exceeds the implication in the constitution.
    The implication of the constitution relative to religion and state is, unfortunately, unclear, despite the fact that both sides are convinced that it is clear. The excellent book Moral Minority helped clarify the views of Jefferson, Washington, Franklin, Hamilton, Madison and Adams on this issue, and I think the far stronger case is that they felt that they should be as separate as possible, not only for the sake of the freedom of people but for the sake of each religion to believe as they please. The factional and contentious divisions between faiths is less now than it was then but the founders and their ancestors had just left a Europe riddled by partisan religious wars and it is clear that the leading lights among the founding fathers (lesser figures like Patrick Henry did fight to have God and religion inserted in the Declaration and the Constitution but were overruled).

    So far as education, setting basic standards is absolutely necessary but you can't possibly believe that No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top bear any resemblance to setting standards for basic education. The departments of education, energy, environmental protection and all of the czars far exceed the limits and intentions of the constitution.
    Well, that's a different discussion then. Before it sounded like you thought there should be no federal standards on these things.

    You make a great point that the Federal Government and the Constitution are (our at least should be) only interested in rules and law, not morality. I wish that the populous knew more about the constitution and revered it for the true miracle that it is. The further that we depart from it and abuse it, the worse things are going to get.
    Eh, once again, I can't agree. Part of the greatness of the Constitution was that it was designed to be amended. Despite what some originalists will tell you, it contains no specific instructions on how it's to be interpreted and the various founders fought with each other over various provisions and came at times to poor (3/5ths Compromise) or incomplete ("necessary and proper" means what exactly?) solutions.
    Quote Quote  

  7. -67
    Buddy's Avatar
    Starter

    Status:
    Online
    WPA:
    Join date:
    May 2004
    Posts:
    3,956
    vCash:
    15764
    Loc:
    Victoria, TX
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus View Post
    But why? The federal government has a responsibility to enforce the rights it guarantees. Otherwise, it's not a guarantee. I don't know if you're familiar with Loving v. Virginia, but I think a similar ruling is heading our way regarding gay marriage. With regard to abortion, this was once again ruled to be a violation of the constitutionally guaranteed right to privacy. Do you believe that a state should have the ability to curtail federally protected rights?

    The implication of the constitution relative to religion and state is, unfortunately, unclear, despite the fact that both sides are convinced that it is clear. The excellent book Moral Minority helped clarify the views of Jefferson, Washington, Franklin, Hamilton, Madison and Adams on this issue, and I think the far stronger case is that they felt that they should be as separate as possible, not only for the sake of the freedom of people but for the sake of each religion to believe as they please. The factional and contentious divisions between faiths is less now than it was then but the founders and their ancestors had just left a Europe riddled by partisan religious wars and it is clear that the leading lights among the founding fathers (lesser figures like Patrick Henry did fight to have God and religion inserted in the Declaration and the Constitution but were overruled).

    Well, that's a different discussion then. Before it sounded like you thought there should be no federal standards on these things.

    Eh, once again, I can't agree. Part of the greatness of the Constitution was that it was designed to be amended. Despite what some originalists will tell you, it contains no specific instructions on how it's to be interpreted and the various founders fought with each other over various provisions and came at times to poor (3/5ths Compromise) or incomplete ("necessary and proper" means what exactly?) solutions.
    The problem that I have with the rights "guaranteed" by the constitution pertaining to gay marriage and abortion is that neither is specifically mentioned in the actual constitution. Thus, by my interpretation, they should be delgated to the states according to the Tenth Amendment. This guarantee was issued by the courts not the constitution and in my opinion, it was the wrong decision.

    I will check out Moral Minority as clarification and education on the matter of separation of church and state would be very beneficial to me. I definitely understand the concept of keeping the two in their proper places but it has gone way too far in removing the Ten Commandments from court rooms, forbidding prayers before football games, and the like. Most of the time that complaints arise it comes from some out-of-town activiist and not from anyone actually affected by the prayer or court room decor. I would just as vehemently fight against mandating the Ten Commandments be posted in every court room or that prayer be required in school. People need to make up their own minds and the government needs to just stay out of it. I do agree with you that the water is muddy at best on this subject and probably also needs to be delegated to the states and municipalities...you will see that answer a lot from me!

    I also agree with you that provisions were made in the Constitution to allow for growth and changes in the landscape of the United States. However, I still contend that most people today have no idea what the Constitution states, why it was written the way it was, and why it is so important as the foundation of our government and society. It is not a perfect document but it is one of the most effective pieces of legislation ever constructed.
    Quote Quote  

  8. -68
    rob19's Avatar
    Soul Rebel

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Mar 2006
    Posts:
    7,493
    vCash:
    9329
    Loc:
    Georgia
    Thanks / No Thanks
    1972 Dolphins Logo
    Quote Originally Posted by Buddy
    I know that most people are uncomfortable with the idea but yeah, I would have let the banks, GM, and Chrysler hit the ground and shatter. Many of the banks/companies involved would not have failed and they would have been far more cautious in the future in their business ventures. As it stands, the banks and big industry as a whole do not fear failure because Uncle Sam will jump in and throw cash at them. So, they can be wholly irresponsible with regards to risk because they are guaranteed not to fail. Like I said, the economy's death warrant was signed when the mortgage standards were forcibly lowered and the resulting loans were ultimately guaranteed by congress and paid for by the US taxpayers.
    “Critics say that the bailout may encourage even more bad behavior in the future by leading bankers to think that the government will be there to save them. But this moral hazard critique is overblown. The government has a long history of letting businesses collapse – think of all the companies that went under between 2000 and 2003, including Enron and WorldCom. And even in the financial crisis, several huge firms disappeared: Bear Sterns, Lehman Brothers, and Merrill Lynch. Citigroup barely survives and has never recovered its value. Many masters of the universe lost their shirts. I can’t imagine that the lesson anyone would drew here is that it’s perfectly fine to blow up your firm with outsized risks because Uncle Sam will come to the rescue. Just look at the recent collapse of MF Global.”

    http://www.policymic.com/group/showCompetition/id/2445


    Quote Originally Posted by Buddy
    The scary part is that despite my fiscal conservatism, I am actually quite socially liberal. I truly believe in personal choice, personal freedom, and personal responsibility - we need a new party...the MYOB party. If something does not impose on anyone else, I think it should be legal. What you do in your home with your money and your time is up to you as long as you stay out of my business. That is why I so strongly support state's rights, municipal rights, and personal rights
    I’d vote for that party!

    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus
    Well, again, we might have different rules about what constitutes "basic." Like you, I only want as many rules as is necessary.

    This phrase "as little regulation as possible" doesn't really have any meaning, implying as it does that I, for example, want more regulation than is necessary. We just have different ideas of what is necessary.
    What he said^
    Quote Quote  

  9. -69
    TheWalrus's Avatar
    1/7/14

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2011
    Posts:
    9,172
    vCash:
    37493
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Buddy View Post
    The problem that I have with the rights "guaranteed" by the constitution pertaining to gay marriage and abortion is that neither is specifically mentioned in the actual constitution. Thus, by my interpretation, they should be delgated to the states according to the Tenth Amendment. This guarantee was issued by the courts not the constitution and in my opinion, it was the wrong decision.
    Well, the right for gays to marry hasn't yet been sanctioned by the Supreme Court. I just think it will be.

    I think a good way for me to show why I disagree with your adamantine states rights position is to look at the Supreme Court case I mentioned earlier, 1967's Loving v. Virginia. I'll summarize here from Wikipedia:

    Mildred Loving (a woman of African and Rappahannock Native American) and Richard Perry Loving (a white man) were residents of Virginia who had been married in June 1958 in the District of Columbia, having left Virginia to evade the Racial Integrity Act, a state law banning marriages between any white person and any non-white person. Upon their return to Caroline County, Virginia, they were charged with violation of the ban. In their defense, Mrs. Loving had pointed to a marriage certificate on the wall in their bedroom; rather than defending them, it became the evidence the police needed for a criminal charge, because it proved they had been married in another state. Specifically, they were charged under Section 20-58 of the Virginia Code, which prohibited interracial couples from being married out of state and then returning to Virginia, and Section 20-59, which classified miscegenation as a felony, punishable by a prison sentence of between one and five years.

    The Lovings moved to the District of Columbia, and on November 6, 1963, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a motion on their behalf in the state trial court to vacate the judgment and set aside the sentence on the grounds that the violated statutes ran counter to the Fourteenth Amendment. This set in motion a series of lawsuits which ultimately reached the Supreme Court. On October 28, 1964, after their motion still had not been decided, the Lovings began a class action suit in the U.S District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. On January 22, 1965, the three-judge district court decided to allow the Lovings to present their constitutional claims to the Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals. Virginia Supreme Court Justice Harry L. Carrico (later Chief Justice of the Court) wrote an opinion for the court upholding the constitutionality of the anti-miscegenation statutes and, after modifying the sentence, affirmed the criminal convictions.


    Ignoring United States Supreme Court precedent, Carrico cited as authority the Virginia Supreme Court's own decision in Naim v. Naim (1955), also arguing that the case at hand was not a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause because both the white and the non-white spouse were punished equally for the crime of miscegenation, an argument similar to that made by the United States Supreme Court in 1883 in Pace v. Alabama.


    The Court eventually ruled that the law violated both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses and overturned it. Thank goodness.

    But you see what I'm getting at here? By the standard you're laying out, marriage is not a "right" specifically enumerated in the Constitution. Why then should the government interfere in the states in how they want to write their marriage laws?

    I will check out Moral Minority as clarification and education on the matter of separation of church and state would be very beneficial to me.
    Well, to be fair, the book was written by an atheist and takes the position that church and state are meant to be totally separate. There are other books out there that oppose this notion.

    I definitely understand the concept of keeping the two in their proper places but it has gone way too far in removing the Ten Commandments from court rooms
    I don't think the Ten Commandments should be anywhere near a court room, personally. First off, this is not some historical practice going back to the early days of the republic. The trend began as promotional stunt for the movie The Ten Commandments. And secondly, unless "you shall have no other Gods before me" or "thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife" became laws while I wasn't looking, I can't see how they're relevant to the workings of a courtroom.

    People need to make up their own minds and the government needs to just stay out of it.
    Well, this is a republic, meaning government by and for the people.

    I do agree with you that the water is muddy at best on this subject and probably also needs to be delegated to the states and municipalities...you will see that answer a lot from me!
    It appears so. I'm looking forward to your answer on whether you think the Supreme Court did the right thing in Loving v. Virginia, though.
    Quote Quote  

  10. -70
    Buddy's Avatar
    Starter

    Status:
    Online
    WPA:
    Join date:
    May 2004
    Posts:
    3,956
    vCash:
    15764
    Loc:
    Victoria, TX
    Thanks / No Thanks

    Re: Romney Cheated in Debate?

    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus View Post
    Well, the right for gays to marry hasn't yet been sanctioned by the Supreme Court. I just think it will be.

    I think a good way for me to show why I disagree with your adamantine states rights position is to look at the Supreme Court case I mentioned earlier, 1967's Loving v. Virginia. I'll summarize here from Wikipedia:

    Mildred Loving (a woman of African and Rappahannock Native American) and Richard Perry Loving (a white man) were residents of Virginia who had been married in June 1958 in the District of Columbia, having left Virginia to evade the Racial Integrity Act, a state law banning marriages between any white person and any non-white person. Upon their return to Caroline County, Virginia, they were charged with violation of the ban. In their defense, Mrs. Loving had pointed to a marriage certificate on the wall in their bedroom; rather than defending them, it became the evidence the police needed for a criminal charge, because it proved they had been married in another state. Specifically, they were charged under Section 20-58 of the Virginia Code, which prohibited interracial couples from being married out of state and then returning to Virginia, and Section 20-59, which classified miscegenation as a felony, punishable by a prison sentence of between one and five years.

    The Lovings moved to the District of Columbia, and on November 6, 1963, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a motion on their behalf in the state trial court to vacate the judgment and set aside the sentence on the grounds that the violated statutes ran counter to the Fourteenth Amendment. This set in motion a series of lawsuits which ultimately reached the Supreme Court. On October 28, 1964, after their motion still had not been decided, the Lovings began a class action suit in the U.S District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. On January 22, 1965, the three-judge district court decided to allow the Lovings to present their constitutional claims to the Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals. Virginia Supreme Court Justice Harry L. Carrico (later Chief Justice of the Court) wrote an opinion for the court upholding the constitutionality of the anti-miscegenation statutes and, after modifying the sentence, affirmed the criminal convictions.


    Ignoring United States Supreme Court precedent, Carrico cited as authority the Virginia Supreme Court's own decision in Naim v. Naim (1955), also arguing that the case at hand was not a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause because both the white and the non-white spouse were punished equally for the crime of miscegenation, an argument similar to that made by the United States Supreme Court in 1883 in Pace v. Alabama.


    The Court eventually ruled that the law violated both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses and overturned it. Thank goodness.

    But you see what I'm getting at here? By the standard you're laying out, marriage is not a "right" specifically enumerated in the Constitution. Why then should the government interfere in the states in how they want to write their marriage laws?



    Well, to be fair, the book was written by an atheist and takes the position that church and state are meant to be totally separate. There are other books out there that oppose this notion.



    I don't think the Ten Commandments should be anywhere near a court room, personally. First off, this is not some historical practice going back to the early days of the republic. The trend began as promotional stunt for the movie The Ten Commandments. And secondly, unless "you shall have no other Gods before me" or "thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife" became laws while I wasn't looking, I can't see how they're relevant to the workings of a courtroom.



    Well, this is a republic, meaning government by and for the people.



    It appears so. I'm looking forward to your answer on whether you think the Supreme Court did the right thing in Loving v. Virginia, though.
    Though I thoroughly disagree with the premise of the law, I think that Virginia had the right to write their marriage laws as they saw fit. I also initially think that the Supreme Court overstepped its bounds by overturning the Virginia law. Please understand though that I don't know anything more about the case than what you posted above so i do not know the specifics of the case nor the law. With that being said, I could see the criminal portion of this case being unconstitutional yet see the Supreme Court upholding Virginia being able to refuse to recognize the marriage as valid.

    I believe that we will see a lot of states refusing to recognize gay marriages even if they were performed in states that do recognize it. Either way, i still don't think the federal government our supreme court should intervene either way.

    Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
    Quote Quote  

Similar Threads

  1. At The Last Presidential Debate: Romney Told 24 Myths In 41 Minutes!
    By CRAZYDOLFAN305 in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-25-2012, 12:25 AM
  2. Threats to assassinate Romney after debate
    By Ilovemyfins4eva in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 10-18-2012, 02:41 PM
  3. At Last Night’s Debate: Romney Told 31 Myths In 41 Minutes
    By CRAZYDOLFAN305 in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 10-17-2012, 05:10 PM
  4. Obama Says He Wants to Debate Civil Liberties With Romney LOL!!!!!
    By Dolphins9954 in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 10-11-2012, 06:24 PM
  5. Mitt Romney vs Barack Obama First Debate Preview
    By Dolphins9954 in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-03-2012, 08:58 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •