Bush supports anti gay marriage amendment

[edward]

The gay marriage issue is all of a sudden back in the news. Why is it that it only seems to be important to the far right when an election is coming up? That question kind of answers itself I guess.

WASHINGTON - The Senate this week will debate a measure that everybody knows is doomed - a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

A waste of time? Not to its supporters. The purpose of debating the amendment now is not constitutional change. It is climate change - of the political variety.

The Republican Party's conservative base has grown increasingly angry over immigration and federal spending, adding to other problems that make 2006 a tough election year for the GOP.

And politicians in trouble always turn to their base.

Sen. Sam Brownback, a chief supporter of the amendment, called the timing incidental: "I'll take the floor time when I can get it," the Kansas Republican said. "This is a critical policy issue."

Actually as far as being a true critical issue, this should be at the bottom of the list even for neo cons. Bush supported the amendment in his weekly radio address.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Yep, it's just more nonsense like the flag ammendment.

 

[silkworm]

It's an election year tactic. Nothing will really come of it. Expect new fuel for anti-abortion legislation, a BS promise to investigate those responsible for this oil hike (largest profit ever), and to hold those who botched the war, Katrina, etc. etc. to be help accountable. Nothing though, will happen.

The conservatives are starting to understand what rational people have been telling them about the Republicans, and they're pissed.

 

[franznietzsche]

The gay marriage issue is all of a sudden back in the news. Why is it that it only seems to be important to the far right when an election is coming up? That question kind of answers itself I guess.

Actually as far as being a true critical issue, this should be at the bottom of the list even for neo cons. Bush supported the amendment in his weekly radio address.

How many people still haven't figured this one out? Its like I said a year ago. The only reason it was ever brought up was to put it on state ballots to drive fundamentalists to the polls so that while they were there, they might as well vote for their republican candidates. The people pusshing this don't actually care. That is why Kerry lost the election in 04 for those of you who still haven't managed to figure it out.

 

[Pengwuino]

It's an election year tactic. Nothing will really come of it. Expect new fuel for anti-abortion legislation, a BS promise to investigate those responsible for this oil hike (largest profit ever), and to hold those who botched the war, Katrina, etc. etc. to be help accountable. Nothing though, will happen.

A liberal ignoring something the government did in order to continue using their rhetoric, I am not surprised. Even after the investigation was completed, the rhetoric remains. No wonder liberals arent taken seriously in this country anymore.

 

[silkworm]

I'm not a liberal, I follow no ideology, and I despise the existence of political parties. A few people on this board really love to rush to judgement about other members.

Of what investigation are you speaking?

 

[Pengwuino]

I'm not a liberal, I follow no ideology, and I despise the existence of political parties. A few people on this board really love to rush to judgement about other members.

Of what investigation are you speaking?

Considering one of your first posts here was an attack on conservatives and you got some shots in on Bush, i don't buy it.

http://washingtontimes.com/business/20060523-125517-5777r.htm

This was big news.. of course it never got time on this forum for obvoius reasons Although I am sure it'll quickly be met with the usual "I don't agree with it so its wrong and ill ignore it" from others.

 

[silkworm]

I hate conservative politics and GW Bush and his regime, but I also hate the democratic party and whiny liberalism. There is more than just one side or the other, mine is no side at all.

And your report isn't even about what I was speaking about. I was talking about gas hikes in general and the fact that the oil industry had the most profit in one year than any other industry in history. Katrina was botched in terms of pre-planning and post-relief, the regime's obvious weakness in everything they do. I said nothing about a gas hike covered up by Katrina.

 

[Pengwuino]

I don't think you got the point of the article..

 

[SOS2008]

A liberal ignoring something the government did in order to continue using their rhetoric, I am not surprised. Even after the investigation was completed, the rhetoric remains. No wonder liberals arent taken seriously in this country anymore.

I am responding to your posts not because I am liberal but because your posts make no sense.

Back to the OP, I was reading a news article earlier today stating that a ban on gay marriage would not have the same affect as in 2004 because there are too many more important issues on people's minds at this time. Hallelujah, Lord have mercy, let's hope so.

In the meantime, in Bush's radio address he stated: “Unfortunately, activist judges and some local officials have made an aggressive attempt to redefine marriage in recent years.” Hah! Activist judges would be the ones Bush has appointed. Though I'm personally not in favor of making same-sex marriage legal (I believe there are other legal implements that gays can use to achieve similar rights), it just may be that judges are following the rule of law (for example, a guilty person is set free if arrested or searched improperly), which Bush has no concept of. But ultimately, as Biden stated on Meet The Press, calls for a federal marriage amendment banning gay unions is nothing more than politics.

As for criticism of Bush, I have stated many, many times in this forum that if a pro-Bush member has facts proving what a wonderful job Bush has been doing, please feel free to share it with us. I have yet to see this, because there is no such evidence. It is the truth (unfortunate as it may be) that Bush will go down in history as a below average president, so please stop sniveling.

 

[edward]

mometarily hijacking my own thread

I don't think you got the point of the article..

The point of the article was that there was/is no price gouging by the oil companies.

They don't have to price gouge. Windfall profits were a given and a built in guarantee when the FTC allowed the oil companies and refineries to merge. That is why the oil companies wanted the mergers. The claim of big oil that they could provide cheaper petroleum products if they were allowed to merge was the biggest scam in the last 100 years.

On the other hand at the same time the big oil mergers were going on, a company named "Breyers Ice Cream" wanted to merge with the Nestles Chocolate company. The FTC refused to allow that merger on the grounds that it would reduce competition.

Back to the topic: Will the Christain right see the light this time around?

Will Karl Rove publish pictures of black children in magazines and claim that they belong to white Southern democrtatic candidates?

Will Rove insinuate that some Democrtic candidates are gay and that the rest are philanderers.

How many will Rove describe as being mentally unstable due to their military experiences.

When the dirty tricks start, and they will, it will be Rove's doing. The gay marriage amendment is only the beginning.

 

[Manchot]

A liberal ignoring something the government did in order to continue using their rhetoric, I am not surprised. Even after the investigation was completed, the rhetoric remains. No wonder liberals arent taken seriously in this country anymore.

I find it interesting that you completely ignored the point of this thread. You're usually quick to defend Bush, so why aren't you now? Do you think that his motivations are purely political, or not?

 

[scott1]

It should be the states responsibillty weather to ban same sex marrigage not the fedreal government.

 

[Rach3]

It should be the states responsibillty weather to ban same sex marrigage not the fedreal government.

This being a proposed Constitutional Amendment, it requires the approval of 3/4 of the states. Do your research first.

 

[BobG]

Back to the topic: Will the Christain right see the light this time around?

Will Karl Rove publish pictures of black children in magazines and claim that they belong to white Southern democrtatic candidates?

Will Rove insinuate that some Democrtic candidates are gay and that the rest are philanderers.

How many will Rove describe as being mentally unstable due to their military experiences.

When the dirty tricks start, and they will, it will be Rove's doing. The gay marriage amendment is only the beginning.

Is there any other game in town for the Christian right?

Realistically, they only wield power if withholding their vote is a credible threat.

On the other hand, Bush and Frist are the most supportive President and Senate leader they've had. Their situation can only get worse - something Rove will be sure to point out.

It doesn't matter whether the amendment passes or not - it gives congressmen a chance to make their own position public, and to point out that Bush and Congress are doing all they can given the small majority of the Republicans. If the Christian right wants a realistic chance of getting these types of issues passed (and why Bush spend much political capital on something with no chance of passage), then they need to do their part by electing a few more conservative Republicans.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

This being a proposed Constitutional Amendment, it requires the approval of 3/4 of the states.

So, isn't he saying that it shouldn't even be proposed outside of state legislature? States grant marriage licences, so shouldn't they decide on gay marriage individually? Sounds reasonable to me, even if you can try to do otherwise. (i.e. he knows it's a proposed Constitutional Amendment, but disagrees that it should be a federal issue)

Do your research first.

Ditto

 

[Rach3]

So, isn't he saying that it shouldn't even be proposed outside of state legislature? States grant marriage licences, so shouldn't they decide on gay marriage individually? Sounds reasonable to me, even if you can try to do otherwise. (i.e. he knows it's a proposed Constitutional Amendment, but disagrees that it should be a federal issue)

There's few restrictions on what amendments are allowable - probably because it takes so much time and overwhelming support on many levels. So whether something "should" or should not be proposed as an amendment is very much a matter of opinion - unlike the question of whether Congress can legislate a particular law. Amendments are very different from legistlations.

Besides, federal marriage benefits are a federal issue, are they not? (I'm strongly opposed to this amendment, to clarify).

 

[scott1]

This being a proposed Constitutional Amendment, it requires the approval of 3/4 of the states. Do your research first.

I know about the constion but I was saying that a state should be the ones to decided on this kind of stuff not the federal.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

So whether something "should" or should not be proposed as an amendment is very much a matter of opinion - unlike the question of whether Congress can legislate a particular law. Amendments are very different from legistlations.

Yep, that's what I'm saying. He understands what is going on and is still offering an opinion. Basically, you just repeated what I said. Good to know we're all on the same page.

 

[scott1]

Anti-gay admendment:defeted

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/07/same.sex.marriage/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Senate blocked on Wednesday a bid to amend the Constitution to essentially ban same-sex marriage.

Not good news or bad news.
I hope this doesn't get in congress next year again. This needs to be the states respsobillty not the federal goverment.

 

[Gokul43201]

Ooh, the politicization of TheSwerve!

Welcome. Blunt weapons in this corner; pointy ones in that.

 

[NateTG]

Actually, since the Constituion is the fundamental law here, there are no limits on what can be put into an amendment.

For example, it would be completely legitemate (from legal perspective) to make a constitutional amendement that gave all worshipers of the Flying Spaghetti Monster an exemption from income tax. Of course, that would never pass.

Notably, the current version of the FMA includes:

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.

Which would, for example, legalize denying marriage licenses to jews, atheists, blacks, mixed couples, citizen-imigrant couples or, for that matter people with odd social security numbers. (And, as the most recent amendment to the constitution it supercedes *all* other law in the US.)

Moreover, in the cases of, for example, Vermont and Massachusets, it can be readily argued (under the same equality clauses that led to civil unions or gay marriage) that providing disproportionate benefits to heterosexual couples is discriminatory, and that, as a consequence, all state laws that recognize marriage are unconstitutional.

 

[Skyhunter]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/07/same.sex.marriage/index.html

Not good news or bad news.
I hope this doesn't get in congress next year again. This needs to be the states respsobillty not the federal goverment.

That depends. If the Democrats gain control of the Congress it won't come up again. If the Republicans keep control, it won't come up next year, but you can bet that they will roll it out in 2008 to mobilize the homophobic base.

[edit]BTW. What happened to my post about the alleged bi-sexual affair Bush had?

Is this forum being censored? [/edit]

 

[StarkRavingMad]

That depends. If the Democrats gain control of the Congress it won't come up again. If the Republicans keep control, it won't come up next year, but you can bet that they will roll it out in 2008 to mobilize the homophobic base.

Not necessarily. This is an issue where a lot of people who support Bush take exception with his policies.

I almost hesitate to agree with you (because there are reasons one could agree with the principle of Bush's argument without being homophobic -- that is an ignorant blanket assessment on people) , but yeah... Just about everyone seems to recognize this for what it is, especially given the timing. It is a political stunt to motivate the far right base. It doesn't have a prayer of passing as an ammendment, so it's really much ado about nothing. Just mid-term election year hoopla.

But there is little chance of the Republicans bringing this issue up on their own from either house of congress. This is all GWB. And it's also not a given that it will ever be brought up again, either, even if a Republican wins in 08... especially if the Republican that wins the primaries ends up being someone like Guilliani.

There is another reason for pushing for this issue, but it doesn't justify an ammendment or make Bush's tactics look any better.

Honestly, speaking from a purely political stance and leaving religion out of the discussion, I think the vast majority majority of us on all sides of the aisle would agree that the states should be deciding this issue. And it's not an issue that every state should be expected to conform on even if 3/4 of them somehow agree on it.

BUT... the real issue is that courts are ignoring the laws of their own states and even sometimes making up laws from the bench, without the legislative process.

The judicial branch has no check or balance on them. The way the system runs now thanks to us allowing it to be kidnapped by lawyers, there is currently no way to override the courts. IOW the people have no say in a decision that ends up somehow becoming defacto law.

THAT is the issue Bush should be addressing as far as instituting a national fix. Let the gay marriage debate happen at the local level where it belongs.

 

[Gokul43201]

But there is little chance of the Republicans bringing this issue up on their own from either house of congress. This is all GWB.

Not true. The GOP put this up as a high priority on their agenda a little over a month ago.

...the GOP just recently decided on the top three legislative issues to focus on for the rest of this year : (i) a constitutional amendment outlawing gay marriage, (ii) anti-flag-burning legislation, and (iii) new abortion limits.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...nate-gop_x.htm
...

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=971059#post971059

 

[StarkRavingMad]

Like I said... mid-term election year hoopla. This is a party supporting their president (though for some, it might be begrudgingly). I think he's got the issue all wrong, and I'm not alone. People aren't behind it in the numbers Bush thinks. I suspect that what this could actually do is demonstrate that the *shudder* "Christian Right" is not nearly the driving force that liberals want to think it is.

I don't have a link, just going by anecdotal evidence from conversations and listening to callers on "those" radio shows.

I seriously predict this issue will fade away in 2007. Despite what USA Today is reporting, I don't see any of those cited issues being pushed as top news items on the gop website, though. The only thing different about the their platform from 2004 is the addition of immigration reform. Maybe it's an election year issue for the current blockheads in the senate, but it's NOT a focus of the party.

 

[rcgldr]

Just wait until there's a rule that the euphism, "a womens right to choose", has to be fully expanded to "a women's right to choose to kill her unborn fetus" on ballot issues.

 

[Skyhunter]

Not necessarily. This is an issue where a lot of people who support Bush take exception with his policies.

I almost hesitate to agree with you (because there are reasons one could agree with the principle of Bush's argument without being homophobic --

I agree. I wasn't saying that everyone against gay marriage is homophobic, just that the issue will bring the homophobes to the polls.

BUT... the real issue is that courts are ignoring the laws of their own states and even sometimes making up laws from the bench, without the legislative process.

Could you provide some case examples. I have seen no evidence of this assertion. Near as I can tell it is nothing more than empty rhetoric coming from the administration and Republican lawmakers.

The judicial branch has no check or balance on them. The way the system runs now thanks to us allowing it to be kidnapped by lawyers, there is currently no way to override the courts. IOW the people have no say in a decision that ends up somehow becoming defacto law.

Again I would ask that you site specific cases to support your assertions.

The judicial branch interprets the law, the check and balance is the legislature that writes the laws. The only branch that is exceeding it's constitutional authority is the executive, by claiming war time authority to bypass the FISA courts.

Appointing judges that are in favor of a unitary executive is a way of furthering the imbalance of power. With no congressional oversight, the administration is stomping all over the constitution. That is why I am going to support Democrats in the mid-term. Checking the power of a run-away executive is of paramount importance.

 

[arildno]

Since all evidence in the world shows that being religious most probably impedes your rational faculties and will, hopefully, be peacefully exterminated in the future, I'm not bothered what an idiot president and his brainwashed adherents bleat about.

 

[Gokul43201]

From scott's CNN link:

"We're going to continue to press this issue," Colorado Republican Sen. Wayne Allard said. "If it's up to me, we'll have a vote on this issue every year."

Why? Does he think it'll have a chance of making the 67 votes or even the 60 votes needed to give it a second look? The GOP was expecting to get 52 ayes on it (and no more) this time, compared to the 48 in favor 2 years ago, when it came up for vote. They got 49. Allard only justified (in my eyes) his ranking by Time as being among the 5 worst senators. The Senate has 13 appropriations bills on their plates at the moment.

Incidentally, there were 2 Dems that voted in favor and 7 Republicans that voted against. Specter and McCain were the only Republicans not from New England that voted against. (I don't know who the Democrats that voted for are - I'll look it up).

 

[StarkRavingMad]

Again I would ask that you site specific cases to support your assertions.

The judicial branch interprets the law, the check and balance is the legislature that writes the laws. The only branch that is exceeding it's constitutional authority is the executive, by claiming war time authority to bypass the FISA courts.

The only reason I post things like this on a public forum is for the off-chance that someone comes across it that has even the possibility of an open mind. So don't take this link as an argument to try and convince you personally of anything.

It's hysterical that you accuse me of spouting rhetoric and then go off on the patently false "wire tapping scandal". I didn't hear all this crying when Bill Clinton took steps to increase executive power, and then used them. But I digress.

All the relative sources are collected and cited here...

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0895260506/?tag=pfamazon01-20

The first offense was the very case that invented the power that courts now have to determine whether something is unconstitutional in the first place, Marbury vs Madison. That power is not, in fact, actually in the Constitution. That's how far back the problem dates. Why the people in power let that stand is a mystery.

Other landmark cases include the case in New Jersey where the concept of separation of church and state was intentionally misinterpreted to keep funding for busses away from parochial schools. The result of that is that freedom of religion has devolved into a circular debate over freedom -from- religion.

More recently, the emminent domain case is the most blatent example. These middle class people with perfectly good homes happened to be living in an area that developers wanted... so the courts decided to expand the rights of a city to seize property for the purpose of raising tax revenues from private companies.

The bulk of the gay marriage debate is a the direct result of a court in San Francisco ignoring California marriage laws when they based their decision on precedence from the east coast cases.

That is the reason why Bush thinks an ammendment is necessary, to stop courts from doing this. But I'd rather he address the courts specifically, not throw up his hands and make it look like only an ammendment can stop them. All it's doing is clouding the real issue. Sure the base is rallied, but they are fousing on the wrong thing.

 

[Gokul43201]

It's hysterical that you accuse me of spouting rhetoric

He did? I can't seem to find it.

and then go off on the patently false "wire tapping scandal".

How do you assign a truth value to a scandal? A scandal is how people and the press describe an incident. How can a scandal be true or false?

I didn't hear all this crying when Bill Clinton took steps to increase executive power, and then used them.

Well this forum wasn't up then. So how would you know if Skyhunter was in fact crying when Clinton was in power? Besides, you either make the assertion (about Clinton amassing executive power) and back it up, or don't make the assertion at all.

All the relative sources are collected and cited here...

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0895260506/?tag=pfamazon01-20

That does not count as a source. When you state things as fact, you should provide as close to original sources as you can (or are necessary) that document these facts. A link to a book on Amazon is not a citation of a source.If you'd like to know what the guidelines for posting in this sub-forum are, there's a sticky thread at the top that you should read (if you haven't already).

 

[StarkRavingMad]

This is why so many politicians and commentators say that if they spent the time it took to defend every single detail that they said, they wouldn't have time to do anything else. The things you people force us to defend is just... wow.

He did? I can't seem to find it.

Uhm...

Near as I can tell it is nothing more than empty rhetoric coming from the administration and Republican lawmakers.

Since I was repeating that "rhetoric", it's a safe assumption he was including me in the target of that comment.

How do you assign a truth value to a scandal? A scandal is how people and the press describe an incident. How can a scandal be true or false?

This is the most absurd statement I've ever read. The press declares a scandal, therefore it is a scandal? Any attempt to point out that the accusations are flawed or that the accused is innocent gets trumped by claiming that a scandal can neither be true or false?

Why am I even dignifying this?

Well this forum wasn't up then. So how would you know if Skyhunter was in fact crying when Clinton was in power?

If he was, I apologize. But based on the things he says about politics today, I highly doubt he would have been. Of course he claims to be unaware of Clinton's laundry list of executive orders, so I guess the point is moot.

Besides, you either make the assertion (about Clinton amassing executive power) and back it up, or don't make the assertion at all.

Okay...

http://www.eagleforum.org/psr/1999/may99/psrmay99.html
http://www.gurusinc.com/aa/eo.html
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/1/29/104302.shtml
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/clinton.html
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/c-execorders.html

That does not count as a source. When you state things as fact, you should provide as close to original sources as you can (or are necessary) that document these facts. A link to a book on Amazon is not a citation of a source.

I figured why bother repeating all of the research that's already been done. If that gives you permission to ignore it, oh well. You may get better results from actually reading the book, though. It's enlightening.

If you'd like to know what the guidelines for posting in this sub-forum are, there's a sticky thread at the top that you should read (if you haven't already).

The cases I cited are all public knowledge. The first two are taught in high school and the next two have been all over the papers for some time.

Yeah well, this is the part when I leave anyway. I'm sick of banging my head against the wall. I only came to the forums looking for some feedback on my sci fi writing, but got sidetracked when I saw these threads.

Look... I haven't said anything either inflammatory or antagonizing. There is no reason to crack the rules down like that in light of so many other posts that aren't as exhaustively documented as you claim to expect. It's evidence of some rather severe bias.

But thank you for demonstrating the futility of expecting logic in a political discussion.

 

[Gokul43201]

Since I was repeating that "rhetoric", it's a safe assumption he was including me in the target of that comment.

I think you're over-reacting. He wasn't accusing you of anything. In fact he was being pretty civil throughout that post.

This is the most absurd statement I've ever read. The press declares a scandal, therefore it is a scandal?

If that's what you read, please read it again. I was merely asking you what you meant by your statement.

Any attempt to point out that the accusations are flawed or that the accused is innocent gets trumped by claiming that a scandal can neither be true or false?

Why am I even dignifying this?

Too late, you just did.

It is one thing to speak of the truth values of the reports of events behind a scandal. It made no sense to me that you would assign a truth value to a scandal itself. A scandal is a result of public opinion. The things those opinions are based on may be true or untrue or impossible to know the truth value of. The opinions nevertheless exist.

I repeat : I was only asking you what you meant by your statement that a scandal was false. I was hoping to get a clarification or some kind of justification for the claim. If you think my question somehow trumped your attempt to point something out, that is entirely your perception, and was in no part suggested by me.

If he was, I apologize. But based on the things he says about politics today, I highly doubt he would have been. Of course he claims to be unaware of Clinton's laundry list of executive orders, so I guess the point is moot.

Okay.

Okay...

http://www.eagleforum.org/psr/1999/may99/psrmay99.html
http://www.gurusinc.com/aa/eo.html
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/1/29/104302.shtml
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/clinton.html
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/c-execorders.html

Thanks for the links. I intend to go through them.

I figured why bother repeating all of the research that's already been done. If that gives you permission to ignore it, oh well. You may get better results from actually reading the book, though. It's enlightening.

I don't imagine most of us will buy a book and read it because you say it has the answer to a question asked by a poster. Many of us, however, will go through the links you've just supplied.

The cases I cited are all public knowledge. The first two are taught in high school and the next two have been all over the papers for some time.

The cases you described were just fine. I didn't say there was any problem with them.

Yeah well, this is the part when I leave anyway. I'm sick of banging my head against the wall. I only came to the forums looking for some feedback on my sci fi writing, but got sidetracked when I saw these threads.

I hope you're not making this decision thinking I was attacking you. If anything I was pointing out that you perhaps misinterpreted someone else's remark as an attack on you when it wasn't meant to be one.

Look... I haven't said anything either inflammatory or antagonizing.

You have not.

There is no reason to crack the rules down like that in light of so many other posts that aren't as exhaustively documented as you claim to expect.

I wasn't cracking the rules down on you - only suggesting you look through them because you are relatively new here.

It's evidence of some rather severe bias.

I'm a poster like everyone else here. I'm not a moderator. I wield no authority whatsoever, and have no ability to project any.

You judge my bias based on what - my last two years of posts? Do have have any knowledge of the number of posts I have reported for not following the posting guidelines.

But thank you for demonstrating the futility of expecting logic in a political discussion.

That, I'm going to ignore.

 

[StarkRavingMad]

That's not how your post came across. Sorry. You certainly "sounded" like a mod. Communicating these kinds of opinions with just text can cause problems.

I didn't feel attacked by Skyhunter telling me I was repeating rhetoric. It was an accusation, and a little too dismissive, but not all that insulting. It wasn't until your follow up that I thought it was a big deal.

And I figured that the presence of a book on the subject was enough to imply that sources exist besides my own claims. You can laugh at the book itself all you want, but its still a source. I would have thought that listing of those most pertinent cases, including the court case that effectively created the issue at hand (or at least exacerbated it), would have been enough anyway.

If courts really did just interperet the law and settle disputes and crimes like they were originally intended to do, we wouldn't be facing even half the debates that we currently do. Seriously, the hottest political topics of dissention can all be traced back to a court decision in which no one actually voted on the defacto law that resulted from it.

The most notorious and farthest reaching one was... nah... I should not invoke its name lest the thread get even more derailed than it already has.

Carry on.