← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Buster
Thread ID: 12488 | Posts: 19 | Started: 2004-02-24
2004-02-24 16:21 | User Profile
[url]http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040224/D80TN9P80.html[/url]
What goofus George needs is an amendment for removing crazy federal judges, regardless of the issue at hand.
2004-02-24 18:17 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Buster][url]http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040224/D80TN9P80.html[/url]
What goofus George needs is an amendment for removing crazy federal judges, regardless of the issue at hand.[/QUOTE]
That's for sure.
It's been clear since that time SCOTUS cause CWI with its Dred Scot decison that we can't have a situation where five unelected SCOTUS justices can basically amend the Constitution whenever they want.
The Framers didn't foresee judicial review as pronounced by Marshall, after all. They didn't put a check on SCOTUS.
I agree with the proposal put forth my Robert Bork among others to amend the Constitution to provide that the Senate exercises oversight over the federal judiciary and decides which cases are published as precedent. In other words, SCOTUS cases would be binding on the parties involved, but would become precedential law only if the Senate chose to publish it.
That would take care of most of the outrageous cases, IMHO.
On the other hand, worse is better so I don't support now anything that might save the system as it is. Let it collapse, and the sooner the better.
Walter
2004-02-24 20:07 | User Profile
I'm almost tempted to say that this proposed Amendment is a bad idea, as the emergence and continued existence of gay "marriage" is precisely the sort of thing which has the potential to radicalize millions. However, I think its important that we WNs be seen as supporting the policies that make sense, even within the context of this degenerate "democracy." While its arguably true that the worse things get, the better they will become (so to speak), we must always been seen as aiding efforts opposing evil and this Amendment is just the sort of issue we should get behind for that purpose (the fact that conservatives don't want our support just adds icing to the cake). Anyone having a hard time coming up with a logical argument to explain why its so vital to retain the authentic definition of marriage should read Wintermute's post on the subject.
2004-02-25 05:33 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Leaf Dragon]Influenced by the Hindus, certainly. So?[/QUOTE]
Let's get this straight right now; the Hindus didn't "influence" the "Arabic" numeral system; they devised it. The only role the Arabs played in it, and the reason why we call it "Arabic," is that due to reasons of geographical proximity, the Arabs served as a transmission conduit from one Aryan-founded civilization (India being an example of what happens when the miscegenation tabu fails to function properly i.e., the North American and European near future) to another (Europe). If the Arabs had spread a cholera epidemic from Bombay to Budapest, would you regard cholera as an artifact of Arabic civilization?
2004-02-25 06:38 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Kevin_O'Keeffe]Let's get this straight right now; the Hindus didn't "influence" the "Arabic" numeral system; they devised it. The only role the Arabs played in it, and the reason why we call it "Arabic," is that due to reasons of geographical proximity, the Arabs served as a transmission conduit from one Aryan-founded civilization (India being an example of what happens when the miscegenation tabu fails to function properly i.e., the North American and European near future) to another (Europe). If the Arabs had spread a cholera epidemic from Bombay to Budapest, would you regard cholera as an artifact of Arabic civilization?[/QUOTE]
I think that if you dig into the achievements of Arabic civilization, you'll find that often Christians - the local inhabitants of places like Iraq and Syria who where paying additional poll taxes to the Muslim government - were the folks who actually built the great mosques and madrasas. Not always, to be sure. But there often was an Assyrian or Kurdish Christian or Armenian or Greek who was doing the work. In addition, note that many of the things we admire the Arabs for happened in the twighlight of the Christian civilization of North Africa and the Levant. The habits of mind that Christianity imbued into those societies were still influencing those societies a couple generations after their mass forced conversion to Islam.
Wintermute raises an interesting point about the certain advent of polygamy and its purely forseeable baleful effects on our civilization, and I agree in general, of course. However, the point I'm trying to make is that a death blow was dealt to the institution of marriage long ago, at least since the advent of "no fault" divorce laws in the 1960's, but in fact I think we have to trace the death of marriage back to Henry VIII. The rest was a slow working out of the inevitable, like a Greek tragedy. It's accelerating now as it finally collapses into dust, but this was inevitable anyway.
I read somewhere recently that one of the German princes asked Luther for an opinion on polygamy, and Luther stated that he couldn't find any reason in the Bible to prohibit it. I read that in a secondary source, although a reliable one generally (Catholic World, I think). Anyway, if anybody has information on Luther's stance on polygamy I would be most interested.
The game is over, Wintermute. There's no saving Western Civilization as we understood it, because the great majority of the people have abandoned Christianity as it was understood until relatively recently.
Walter
2004-02-25 09:34 | User Profile
[QUOTE=wintermute]Anyway, [B]RAINA[/B], madrussian and il ragno and all the gang will be along in the morning, and then everyone may marvel at your new disguise - everyone but you, who must go back to being just plain Raina, a crazy dyke who, evidently, can't even hide behind her own made up homophobia.[/QUOTE]
I see no evidence that this is Raina. I do see you seemingly going through some kind of hysterical episode. Goodness, man. Take fifteen or something.
2004-02-25 11:32 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]I see no evidence that this is Raina. I do see you seemingly going through some kind of hysterical episode. Goodness, man. Take fifteen or something.[/QUOTE]
What do you think of the Gay Amendment?
Also, I would be interested in your take on divorce. When is it allowed?
Finally, you mentioned on another thread that you didn't know how Wild Bill and I would see your salvation, but I hope that was just rhetoric. I suspect that you'll be in Heaven three days before the devil knows you're dead, whereas I will have a few old debts to work off in Purgatory.
Walter
2004-02-25 17:00 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]What do you think of the Gay Amendment?
Well, as a states' rights kinda guy I'm not too crazy about that aspect of it. But given where this country is at right now, I support it wholeheartedly. We can't have sodomites legitimizing their perversion and any attempt to do so by them should be fought by any means necessary.
Also, I would be interested in your take on divorce. When is it allowed?
The Scriptures tell us that it is only allowable in the cases of adultery and desertion. That's my position.
Finally, you mentioned on another thread that you didn't know how Wild Bill and I would see your salvation, but I hope that was just rhetoric. I suspect that you'll be in Heaven three days before the devil knows you're dead, whereas I will have a few old debts to work off in Purgatory.[/QUOTE]
Well, I know that trad. Catholics and staunch Orthodox both hold that anyone outside their respective Churches are going to hell, and certainly fundies in my own camp think the same way. I've grown not to think like that, but I still respect those who do. That's all I meant by that comment.
2004-02-25 17:36 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Well, I know that trad. Catholics and staunch Orthodox both hold that anyone outside their respective Churches are going to hell, and certainly fundies in my own camp think the same way. I've grown not to think like that, but I still respect those who do. That's all I meant by that comment.[/QUOTE]
The Catechism is quite clear that all the baptized are among the elect.
I'll try to find the article when I get a chance.
In fact, it extends the hope beyond that, but I'll have to look it up before I shoot my mouth off.
Anyway, the point is that traditional Catholics believe no such thing.
Walter
2004-02-25 17:57 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Anyway, the point is that traditional Catholics believe no such thing.[/QUOTE]
I thought I read the other day where Mel Gibson stated anyone outside of the Catholic Church is bound for hell. Maybe it's just my own beloved evangelical fundamentalists who believe that about Catholics and Orthodox! :ph34r:
2004-02-25 18:05 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Leaf Dragon]And knowing the Republicans, this promised amendment is only red meat for the religious voters, a scrap tossed from the elitist table in order to get "redneck" votes.
Never trust the GOP as long as neocons are at the helm.[/QUOTE]
I heartily agree with this. It's most definitely a political ploy by the GOP to bring in the social cons for one more for the gipper. Pretty good one, too.
I was just answering Walter's question, which I understood as a rhetorical one.
2004-02-25 18:58 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]I heartily agree with this. It's most definitely a political ploy by the GOP to bring in the social cons for one more for the gipper. Pretty good one, too.[/QUOTE]
Remember the Dems gave Bush this issue. He was forced into it when his initial reaction was so off-balance. I think the Dems have shot themselves in the foot. People will now see them for the freak show that they really are. Bush should thank Teddy and his lucky stars for this one.
2004-02-25 20:28 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Buster]Remember the Dems gave Bush this issue. He was forced into it when his initial reaction was so off-balance. I think the Dems have shot themselves in the foot. People will now see them for the freak show that they really are. Bush should thank Teddy and his lucky stars for this one.[/QUOTE]This can't be emphasized enough! Bush was forced into this. He and Rove have done everything they could do to avoid this and other "hot button" social issues. They have been hoping to mollify social conservatives with rhetoric but without being forced into taking real political stances that might offend "moderate" voters.
But with the Mass. SC rulings and the SF mayor flouting California law, Bush had to act, or see his entire social conservative base walk out on him and sit out the 2004 election, content to see Bush lose in a landslide, rather than support a man so obviously insincere about his commitment to conservative values.
Bush has to at least give the appearance of doing something to oppose homosexual marriage, or he can forget about a second term.
2004-02-25 20:33 | User Profile
Well, as a states' rights kinda guy I'm not too crazy about that aspect of it. It's not a "states rights" issue, due to the "full faith and credit" clause in the Constitution. You can't have a situation where states can "chose" their own definition of marriage wildly at odds with other states, because the states have to recognize each others marriages.
Ergo, pro-homo marriage arguments that they are "pro-states rights" to oppose this amendment, are inherently disingenuous, relying on a mere slogan ("states rights") to fool people who do not understand the full legal and constitutional issues.
2004-02-25 20:38 | User Profile
If past performance is any indicator of future actions, this amendment proposal will be hyped more and more as the election draws nearer, depending on how the polls show Bush doing among the base, with the intention that it die a quiet death immediately after the election.
I was thinking that Rove was being stupid by floating the amnesty proposal back in January, but I now think it was merely a trial balloon to see how the base would react. Since it went over badly, I'm sure it will be downplayed from now on, but it was also a message to big-business campaign contributors that it will be business as usual ("wage slaves for everyone!") under a Bush second term.
Look for it to pass after Bush no longer has to answer to the voters.
2004-02-25 20:42 | User Profile
[QUOTE=wintermute]Net result: the West is abolished in favor of a worldwide Levant. [/QUOTE]Which is the whole point of the exercise.
The IP have been busily working to turn the Western nation-states into state-less entities within some formless kind of world-system running on Levantine cultural lines, since they first began to seize power. They are reorganizing the West and reshaping it into a society they are more comfortable in: the Levant, where the "nation" is one's own religious sect and tribe, and where the state is nonexistant or a mere tool for whatever corrupt extended family manages to seize control of it (Iraq under Saddam, for instance).
Western nation-states work, but they cannot be divorced from the inherent Western family structure. But the IP was never comfortable in such a society. So they "reformed" it.
Here's where libertarianism and IP support for it (Rand, Rothbard, etc) comes into play: the Levantine society is a perfect example of what you get with a truly "stateless" society. True, states exist, but they are powerless to do the kinds of things we Westerners take for granted. It is in fact a libertarian paradise, although in fact no gentile libertarian would voluntarily chose to live in such a society.
Edit: I should add, though I would hope it would be obvious, that this process has happened once before, during the late Roman Empire. Judaism, Christianity, Mithraism, and the other Levantine religions all acted to shift Roman society from a Classical (not Western) to a Levantine mode of life. Of course by then the polis was long gone (submerged into Roman rule) but the Classical family structure and way of life (not to mention, art, religion, culture, etc) all slowly converted to Levantine forms.
2004-02-27 20:45 | User Profile
"Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."
All this Amendment does is attempt to boack judicial activism in the one case of granting homosexual marriage. It does nothing to prohibit the government from granting homosexual marriages. Nor, does it prohibit any any judge from forcing states and the people of the various states to recognize homosexual marriages conferred in other states (by abusing the full faith and credit clause).
In other words, we'll be amending the Constitution with practically no postive result. I don't know if the amendment is so gutless because it is made by gutless people or that it is so gutless as to avoid creating resistance.
There already is a constitutional process for removing lawless judges. But, our lawmakers are too gutless to do it. Any constitutional amendment should be designed to fight judicial activism in general rather than address marriage specifically.
Actually, all Congress needs to do is modify the Defense of Marriage Act, if it is thrown out by the courts. Congress should simply declare that Marriage is the union between a man and a woman and nothing in the US Consitution can be construed to mean anything else.
2004-06-01 22:22 | User Profile
This new "old" troll Jeanne D'Arc is posting on this thread as "Leaf Dragon".
2004-06-01 22:58 | User Profile
But you haven't stated that you were a troll. Now everyone is welcome to check this old thread and your exchange with wintermute.