RE: Magical thinking

RE: Magical thinking (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

DomYngBlk -> RE: Magical thinking (10/26/2012 5:16:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic It would help if the repubs had any intention of working with him or the dems. instead of just ousting him And it would help more if he had brought some natural leadership ability to the office, instead of empty charisma, or had some skills in cultivating the sort of friendly relationships that allow people to disagree, without always being disagreeable about it. I think the point you miss is that Republicans have let members of their own party box them in to the point that they can't cooperate on anything substantive. There is a great internal struggle within the republican party. I don't think it is over by a long shot. However, I can't see how there is just one party after the struggle is over.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Magical thinking (10/26/2012 5:17:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Your point of Obama's not enforcing laws is accurate and something should be done about it. It may very well turn out that the laws he's decided to not enforce aren't Constitutional, but that needs to be worked out prior to non-enforcement, IMO. Which laws are you claiming the President is refusing to enforce? Obama has refused to defend DOMA in court. It is indefensible ,and will eventually be ruled unconstitutional ...so what's the problem ? It's law of the land. If it is, in fact, un-Constitutional, it should be challenged and and taken up to the Supreme Robes, or repealed. Either way, if it's not going to be defended, it's a law that's not being upheld. And, for those that are going to jump me for complaining about DOMA not being upheld, get real. I have no problem with gay couples.

DomYngBlk -> RE: Magical thinking (10/26/2012 5:18:42 AM)
I smell bullshit or else you'd not have brought up DOMA.

subspaceseven -> RE: Magical thinking (10/26/2012 5:30:10 AM)
Although the Executive Branch should defend laws from court challenges in most instances, I have identified in this Essay four factors that a President should consider in determining whether to take the extraordinary step of refusing to defend the constitutionality of a federal law. If (1) there are no binding judicial precedents on the relevant constitutional issues; (2) those issues are sufficiently broad to raise fundamental normative and policy questions; (3) Congress failed to consider the relevant constitutional issues when it enacted the law; and (4) it is unlikely that the President's decision will preclude judicial review, then he is on firm ground in refusing to defend the statute in question. President Obama's decision not to defend DOMA's constitutionality was appropriate because it satisfied all of these criteria. http://www.law.northwestern.edu/lawreview/colloquy/2011/21/index.html What part of this don't you get??? It is not like he is the first to not defend a law, they are simply letting the courts know they believe the law is unconstitutional and feel it will be throw out. Now look over the other cases not defended, where is the harsh concern for Reagen, Bushes, hell every president who has made this decision. There are laws on the books in every state that are not enforced, but still remain the law, however the chance of these laws being enforced by the courts is so low no one wastes their time enforcing them..................... Such as It is illegal to sell peanuts in Lee County after sundown on Wednesday. (AL) It is illegal to wear a fake moustache that causes laughter in church. (AL) Putting salt on a railroad track may be punishable by death. (AL) It is legal to drive the wrong way down a one-way street if you have a lantern attached to the front of your automobile. (AL) You must contact the police before entering the city in an automobile. (IL) boy talk about screwing up rush hour One may not pee in his neighbor’s mouth. (IL) HmmmI wonder if it's ok if your neighbor is your sub?

DesideriScuri -> RE: Magical thinking (10/26/2012 6:19:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subspaceseven There are laws on the books in every state that are not enforced, but still remain the law, however the chance of these laws being enforced by the courts is so low no one wastes their time enforcing them..................... My point is, if a law is indefensible, it shouldn't be a law. What would happen if someone sold peanuts on a Wednesday after Sundown in Lee County? Most likely nothing, but, if a police officer had an axe to grind with that nutty salesperson, there could be an issue. Hell, it could result in a Citizen's Arrest, I bet. How many laws are there that aren't enforced, but still on the books? Don't you see how that makes it damn near impossible to know for certain that your activities are legal? You brought up a question about peeing in your sub's mouth. What if it isn't okay, even if done to your sub? You go and enjoy watersports with your sub, and then get a knock on the door where you get arrested based on some stupid law. Now what? Is Obama supportive of repealing DOMA?

DesideriScuri -> RE: Magical thinking (10/26/2012 6:20:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk I smell bullshit or else you'd not have brought up DOMA. DOMA is the perfect example. That's why it was brought up. And, if you smell BS, you might want to look around you. I'm far enough away that you won't smell my BS. [:D]

DomYngBlk -> RE: Magical thinking (10/26/2012 6:21:04 AM)
Uh huh, yeah sure

subspaceseven -> RE: Magical thinking (10/26/2012 6:34:58 AM)
Ahhh but making a law go away is 1. Not the job of the president (he is doing what he legally can do, not defend it) 2. Is a lot harder than creating a law, which is why so many laws are on the books and not enforced. 3. From a taxpayer point of view, far cheaper to not enforce than to waste time/money going through the procedure to remove it. But hey every state in the union does this, as have most every president, but no you are right..everyone else is wrong. Including all the Attorney Generals, for not taking on these laws and making sure the police enforce them

DesideriScuri -> RE: Magical thinking (10/26/2012 6:45:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subspaceseven Ahhh but making a law go away is 1. Not the job of the president (he is doing what he legally can do, not defend it) 2. Is a lot harder than creating a law, which is why so many laws are on the books and not enforced. 3. From a taxpayer point of view, far cheaper to not enforce than to waste time/money going through the procedure to remove it. But hey every state in the union does this, as have most every president, but no you are right..everyone else is wrong. Including all the Attorney Generals, for not taking on these laws and making sure the police enforce them Are we a nation of laws? If we have "bad" laws, should they remain on the books? Actually, it isn't that difficult to get rid of a law. All you do, is write legislation repealing it. It doesn't have to go through the Supreme Court to be taken off the books. If it goes to the Supreme Court to be taken off, it's more likely that it's being forced to be taken off the books. I'm sure it would be more costly to go back and get rid of all the BS laws now, as compared to doing it as they go, but if you ignore it now, how much more will it cost to do so in the future? I'm sure there are enough Congressmen and Congresswomen that could create a "blue ribbon panel" to sift through the books and highlight unenforced laws. Findings could be presented every month or quarter, and voted on by Congress.

subspaceseven -> RE: Magical thinking (10/26/2012 6:51:20 AM)
Yea, cause convening congress (states included) is cheap, and going over old outdated laws is a good use of taxpayer money,.. Strange how every county in every state does not agree with you.. But no you keep going on, that is what open minded people do, insist they have the only true answer and everyone else is wrong

DesideriScuri -> RE: Magical thinking (10/26/2012 6:59:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subspaceseven Yea, cause convening congress (states included) is cheap, and going over old outdated laws is a good use of taxpayer money,.. Strange how every county in every state does not agree with you.. Who said there had to be a special convening of Congress? I'm sure there could be a day that some of this stuff could be put on the docket once every quarter. quote: But no you keep going on, that is what open minded people do, insist they have the only true answer and everyone else is wrong Are you calling yourself closed-minded since you are attempting, in a veiled way, to get me to be silent?

mnottertail -> RE: Magical thinking (10/26/2012 7:34:56 AM)
quote: Actually, it isn't that difficult to get rid of a law. All you do, is write legislation repealing it. It doesn't have to go through the Supreme Court to be taken off the books. If it goes to the Supreme Court to be taken off, it's more likely that it's being forced to be taken off the books. Nothing could be further from the truth. The War Powers Act is clearly unconstitutional, but has not been repealed (and will be challenged one day if the congress is recalictrant with a president, who ignores it, which hasn't happened yet). Roe v Wade could be written out of existence by law. AAPCA could be written out of existance. That's enough.

tazzygirl -> RE: Magical thinking (10/26/2012 7:38:38 AM)
quote: It's law of the land. If it is, in fact, un-Constitutional, it should be challenged and and taken up to the Supreme Robes, or repealed. Either way, if it's not going to be defended, it's a law that's not being upheld. If its not constitutional, the President doesnt have to defend it.

subspaceseven -> RE: Magical thinking (10/26/2012 7:44:20 AM)
There is no attempt to silence you, You are being presented with how this country chooses to deal with outdated laws. It appears our entire legal system is fine with it, however you feel the only correct road of action is yours. Despite overwhelming support by Presidents, Congress, Attorney Generals regardless of political party. It is the way it is, and it appears to be working, cause last time I checked, I did not have to report to the police that I was entering the city with a car, and I do not believe there is a warrant out for my arrest for not reporting in. And the cost of the House for 1 day..... According to a June Congressional Research Service report, when the House is in session it costs the public $53,534 per day — or $8,360 per hour — in House floor costs. But, as CRS notes, that estimate is extremely conservative, because it does not include “leadership and member salaries, member and committee staff salaries, staff employment benefits, utilities, Architect of the Capitol support staff, and costs associated with the media galleries,” which CRS calls “substantial.” So your way is not going to be cheap

thompsonx -> RE: Magical thinking (10/26/2012 12:45:21 PM)
quote: And, for those that are going to jump me for complaining about DOMA not being upheld, get real. I have no problem with gay couples Of course not[8\|] While you claim you have no problem with gay couples you do seem to have something against gay couples getting married and having all the rights and priviledges that straight married couples have. Tell us how many letters did you write your congressman/woman concerning your objections to doma? Suppose the congress passed a law that said that bald headed fat white guys had to suck ten cocks an hour whle being butt-fucked by a donkey would you want the president to have the justice dept vigorously defend it in court?

DesideriScuri -> RE: Magical thinking (10/26/2012 2:26:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: And, for those that are going to jump me for complaining about DOMA not being upheld, get real. I have no problem with gay couples Of course not[8\|] While you claim you have no problem with gay couples you do seem to have something against gay couples getting married and having all the rights and priviledges that straight married couples have. Tell us how many letters did you write your congressman/woman concerning your objections to doma? Suppose the congress passed a law that said that bald headed fat white guys had to suck ten cocks an hour whle being butt-fucked by a donkey would you want the president to have the justice dept vigorously defend it in court? I have no problems with gay couples getting married and having all the rights and privileges straight married couples have. I have said as much in much earlier threads. The law you presented, is un-Constitutional. As such, I don't have to follow it. And, unless it is defended, it won't get to the SCOTUS for ultimate decision. I do have enough hair up there to DQ myself from said law, though.

tazzygirl -> RE: Magical thinking (10/26/2012 2:32:20 PM)
quote: The law you presented, is un-Constitutional. As such, I don't have to follow it. And, unless it is defended, it won't get to the SCOTUS for ultimate decision. I do have enough hair up there to DQ myself from said law, though. You mean someone has to defend a law for it to hit the Supreme Court?

DesideriScuri -> RE: Magical thinking (10/26/2012 2:36:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subspaceseven And the cost of the House for 1 day..... According to a June Congressional Research Service report, when the House is in session it costs the public $53,534 per day — or $8,360 per hour — in House floor costs. But, as CRS notes, that estimate is extremely conservative, because it does not include “leadership and member salaries, member and committee staff salaries, staff employment benefits, utilities, Architect of the Capitol support staff, and costs associated with the media galleries,” which CRS calls “substantial.” So your way is not going to be cheap how much more is it going to cost if they are already in session?

mnottertail -> RE: Magical thinking (10/26/2012 2:39:37 PM)
Since they cannot craft effective legislation on this nations business in timely fashion while they are in session, it will require extended sessions at higher cost.

thompsonx -> RE: Magical thinking (10/28/2012 8:31:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: And, for those that are going to jump me for complaining about DOMA not being upheld, get real. I have no problem with gay couples Of course not[8\|] While you claim you have no problem with gay couples you do seem to have something against gay couples getting married and having all the rights and priviledges that straight married couples have. Tell us how many letters did you write your congressman/woman concerning your objections to doma? Suppose the congress passed a law that said that bald headed fat white guys had to suck ten cocks an hour whle being butt-fucked by a donkey would you want the president to have the justice dept vigorously defend it in court? I have no problems with gay couples getting married and having all the rights and privileges straight married couples have. I have said as much in much earlier threads. The law you presented, is un-Constitutional. As such, I don't have to follow it. And, unless it is defended, it won't get to the SCOTUS for ultimate decision. I do have enough hair up there to DQ myself from said law, though. A cursory glance at a sixth grade civics text would disabuse you of your ignorance. The supreme court decides what is and is not constitutional not you.

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 4 [5]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875