News Bush supports anti gay marriage amendment

[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.

 

[kyleb]

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 was an indirect accusation, but not rightly an attack as long as you will provide some case examples. ;)

 

[edward]

Clinton's ecexutive orders were not about keeping the America in the dark about security issues. If they were he would have classified the "Monica incident".

My point through this thread is that the Bush administration has been the most secretive in the history of this nation. His executive orders have been heavily involved with keeping information from the people, but also from the Congresas and Senate. That amounts to the classifying of material in a dictatorial manner.

Even to the point of allowing Cheney to keep secret the names of the Oil execuitive he met with to determine America's energy policy, this administration has classified everything.

Clinton's executive orders were were more on the order of being of benifit to the common citizen. For instance from one of the links:

During his two terms as president, Bill Clinton averaged about one executive order each week. By doing so, he was able to effectively legislate from the Oval Office. He wrote executive orders to set aside large tracts of land as national monuments. He wrote executive orders to restructure federalism. He wrote executive orders adding "sexual orientation" to laws on federal hiring. He wrote executive orders prohibiting federal contractors from hiring permanent striker replacements. In other words, he exercised a legislative function: he made laws.[/QUOTE]

And many right wingers had a problem with this, yet seem to have no problem with the secret cabal in the Whitehouse, making laws in the same manner.

 

[Gokul43201]

According to Stark's first 2 links, Clinton had 353 publicly disclosed EOs in his 2 terms in office. That's about 3.45 EOs a month.

During these last 65 months of Bush's terms, he has issued a little over 200 EOs (I was a little sloppy in my counting, but the total is 205 +/- 5). That's about 3.15 (between 3.1 and 3.2) EOs per month.

No numbers for secret orders are used above - only those that are publicly disclosed.