My understanding is that Lincoln did not ask Congress for authorization to use military force against the Sovereign States who had left the Union and founded their own country.
The U.S. is not -- and never was -- a "nation". It is a Federation of independent States. That's why we have a Republican form of government, not a National government. Seriously. Look up what "Republic" means.
A republic is basically the opposite of a monarchy. There is no reason that a federation needs to have a president instead of a monarch. Canada is a federation made of Sovereign Provinces. National laws are signed by the Queens representative, the Governor General and Provincial laws are signed by the Queens representative, the Lieutenant Governor. Now our federation does have a stronger federal government then the USA, as our Fathers of Confederation really wanted to avoid the mistakes that America made in its Constitution that led to the American Civil War (plus we were scared of the victorious American army turning north)
Which brings us back to my comment. The Federal government had no authority to declare its supremacy over the States by Amendment, or by proclamation of the Supreme Court, or by any other means. It is a declaration without legal authority.
Forgive my ignorance, but aren't amendments passed by the States and the States as Sovereign entities can give up more of their sovereignty? As for the Supreme Court, the writers of the Constitution should have been more clear on its job as it does look like it has usurped more power then it was meant to have. Really America should have had a Constitutional court of some kind, ideally appointed by the States. Anyways the Civil War seems to have in practice cemented the power of the Federal Government whether constitutional or not as who ever is control of the Army rules.
Canada's gay marriage law includes the right for churches and such to refuse to perform gay marriages for religious reasons. I believe marriage commissioners (sorta like a JP) do have to perform gay marriages. Seems like the right compromise, the Provinces have to issue marriage licenses and the government employees have to perform the wedding. Individual churches etc can decide for themselves. I don't think services are forced either but public businesses such as restaurants can't refuse service based on sexual orientation.
In Canada, while same sex marriage is legal, there is also an exception for churches and such to not perform them for religious belief reasons. I can't imagine forcing a priest to perform a wedding that goes against their beliefs. Services such as photography and catering being forced also seems wrong though something like a hall that is usually available to anyone with money should probably not be allowed to discriminate.
"Are you saying gay people should not get equal protection of laws?"
Don't try to put words in my mouth. I did not write that and did not imply that.
Does not the States have laws about public establishments? Once a business is open to the public it usually falls under different laws from pure private property. eg the police are free to enter a restaurant and examine the menu without a warrant.
However, since we're talking about facts, we should ask ourselves realistically whether laws against discriminating against one group of people infringe on the rights of another group of people. It's a legitimate question.
That's the thing about rights. As soon as you have more then one person exercising rights there is the potential for conflict. The classic is the limitation on swinging fists ending in the space occupied by another person. More complicated is the right of passage against property (not a home). The right to get service vs the right to refuse service. The right to marry your partner vs the right of people to be offended and stop it. It is complex and when it comes to where the federal government fits in, the Constitution should be a living document, living in the sense of growing through amendments, not through being ignored. But currently the way your country works is by using the Constitution as a guide line and the Constitution will probably need to be reworked to fix it and Americans are so scared of opening that can of worms they couldn't amend the Constitution to make the Air Force legal, an amendment that I'd think would have passed easily and if it didn't pass, well having air arms of the Navy and Army wouldn't be bad.
"Seems the Supreme Court says the 14th allows the Federal government to override State laws that remove equal protection under the law. "
Justice Bradley declared that, so it's fact? If the kid next door claims to be ruler of the universe, should I accept it as fact?
It shows that the answer is not clear cut with different learned Justices coming to different interpretations.
The Supreme Court is no more immune from attempting to power-grab than anyone else. But our country was founded by States which delegated some of their sovereign authority to the Federal government. The Federal government was never intended to be the "ruler" of the States. Rather it was the other way around.
Sadly that state of being was thrown out by Lincoln when he unilaterally declared war on some of the States. As he is considered one of your greatest Presidents it seems the vast majority of Americans agree on the federal power grab and now your country is at the present point.
Other judges and Constitutional scholars have claimed that the 14th Amendment says no such thing. Who deified Bradley?
But all that aside: is Arizona proposing to pass a law that would deny equal protection under the law? How so? There is no law against discriminating against straight people either. Seems to me passing laws that relate specifically to certain groups of people is exactly the opposite of "equal protection under the law".
It does seem that laws have to keep getting more accurate to close loop holes. Stop discrimination on the basis of race and people still discriminate based on religion. Stop discrimination on the basis of religion and people discriminate based on sex, etc. The problem is that a general law like no discrimination gets beat down by the courts, blame the silver tongued lawyers.
I'm not making claims either way. I am definitely against interfering with "equal protection". But we might not agree 100% over whether particular anti-discrimination laws really meet that criterion.
And if no-one wants to sell them something? Taken to the extreme there may be no-one willing to even sell them flour or even land to grow their own. Add in no-one willing to sell them transportation (or imagine if all roads were private) and you have the equivalent of a persons right to swing their fist being more important then the right not to get punched in the face. There is always give and take when it comes to rights with the right to injure others usually restricted.
I thought the 14th amendment gave the federal government the power to stop the States from discriminating. Section one in particular,
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Are you saying gay people should not get equal protection of laws?
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Joseph P. Bradley commented in the Civil Rights Cases that “individual invasion of individual rights is not the subject-matter of the [14th] Amendment. It has a deeper and broader scope. It nullifies and makes void all state legislation, and state action of every kind, which impairs the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, or which injures them in life, liberty or property without due process of law, or which denies to any of them the equal protection of the laws.”
Seems the Supreme Court says the 14th allows the Federal government to override State laws that remove equal protection under the law. The rights that go with marriage should be available to all adults and if a State attempts to remove those rights then it seems it would be the Federal governments duty to override those State laws.
My idiot gauge is actually a gauge, witnessed by having a bad connection to the oil sending unit and the gauge giving different readings. As you say though, it is designed to only give 2 readings though in my vehicles cases it's zero and about 45%. I did invest in an OBD II reader for my '97 but the '88 is OBD I and I've had to short out a wire and count flashes on the check engine light to get close to a useless diagnoses. EGR not working in my case, ended up being the temperature sending unit for the ECU.
That wouldn't be a bill of attainder, that would just be a very targeted bill. A bill of attainder would be a law that says i kan read is guilty of using Google Glass and sentenced to... A lawful conviction requires court while a bill of attainder just states that you are guilty and here's the sentence with no judicial oversight.
All the evidence I've seen is that having a conversation with an occupant in the vehicle is much safer then using a cell phone. This is mostly due to the occupant having situational awareness so when some tricky piece of driving shows up, they shut up or at least know why you're ignoring them. On top of this is that an occupant can also point out dangerous situations such as yesterday when my wife screamed stop as someone was in my blind spot and going for the same parking spot I was. I hate talking on the cell when in traffic as the other end has no idea of what is happening and can get uptight just by the conversation being interrupted by having to shift gears. The dash display can be ignored whereas a heads up display can be more in your face. How often do you need to look at your dash?
Do you reject Benjamin Franklin's messages because he was an abusive arsehole who went to orgies on the tax payers dime while leaving his "wife" to starve? Not to mention his history of being of fucking other peoples wives. Or Jeffersons messages even though he bought people for sexual purposes? Or perhaps Washingtons message due to having disgusting teeth?
It's generally accepted that when a foreign power overthrows your government, invades your country or such, fighting back is accepted. If Iran came over, shot the President, dissolved and jailed Congress etc you wouldn't be fine with bombing, DDOS attacks and violent crusades to get your country back? Why do Americans think they have the right to push around others and when others push back they're in the wrong.
My Fords have idiot gauges. The '88 introduced the idiot oil gauge as people panicked when the engine was hot and idling and the needle dropped, The '97 idiotized the voltmetre, I guess people also freaked out when, with everything on, at idle the voltage dropped down close to 12 volts. Really useful.
Well they could have told the Kuwaitis to stop stealing oil, told Saddam that it is not OK to invade Kuwait and while about it, pushed for human rights in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. America really bends down to the Saudis too much, hate to think about when they get nukes, a couple of American cities nuked, Iran flattened and women still not allowed to drive.
They're quite willing to fire on "liberals" "socialists" "rebels" or whatever the bogeyman is today. And of course they'll be sent to a different part of the country then where they're from. History is full of armies shooting on civilians to the point where it really stands out when they refuse.
And average Americans come to Canada for their health care. Actually all the rich people are going other places for their health care, India, Central America and such. You have to be awfully rich to pay American prices.
Slashdot Mirror
Even if they had looked as well as they could, it is hard to say if they would have seen enough to conclusively say whether re-entry was safe or not.
Even if the "guest" is your [common-law] wife?
My understanding is that Lincoln did not ask Congress for authorization to use military force against the Sovereign States who had left the Union and founded their own country.
The U.S. is not -- and never was -- a "nation". It is a Federation of independent States. That's why we have a Republican form of government, not a National government. Seriously. Look up what "Republic" means.
A republic is basically the opposite of a monarchy. There is no reason that a federation needs to have a president instead of a monarch. Canada is a federation made of Sovereign Provinces. National laws are signed by the Queens representative, the Governor General and Provincial laws are signed by the Queens representative, the Lieutenant Governor.
Now our federation does have a stronger federal government then the USA, as our Fathers of Confederation really wanted to avoid the mistakes that America made in its Constitution that led to the American Civil War (plus we were scared of the victorious American army turning north)
Which brings us back to my comment. The Federal government had no authority to declare its supremacy over the States by Amendment, or by proclamation of the Supreme Court, or by any other means. It is a declaration without legal authority.
Forgive my ignorance, but aren't amendments passed by the States and the States as Sovereign entities can give up more of their sovereignty?
As for the Supreme Court, the writers of the Constitution should have been more clear on its job as it does look like it has usurped more power then it was meant to have. Really America should have had a Constitutional court of some kind, ideally appointed by the States.
Anyways the Civil War seems to have in practice cemented the power of the Federal Government whether constitutional or not as who ever is control of the Army rules.
Canada's gay marriage law includes the right for churches and such to refuse to perform gay marriages for religious reasons. I believe marriage commissioners (sorta like a JP) do have to perform gay marriages. Seems like the right compromise, the Provinces have to issue marriage licenses and the government employees have to perform the wedding. Individual churches etc can decide for themselves.
I don't think services are forced either but public businesses such as restaurants can't refuse service based on sexual orientation.
In Canada, while same sex marriage is legal, there is also an exception for churches and such to not perform them for religious belief reasons. I can't imagine forcing a priest to perform a wedding that goes against their beliefs. Services such as photography and catering being forced also seems wrong though something like a hall that is usually available to anyone with money should probably not be allowed to discriminate.
I've also heard that there are only a few (3?) spots on the equator that are gravitationally smooth enough for an elevator to be practical.
"Are you saying gay people should not get equal protection of laws?"
Don't try to put words in my mouth. I did not write that and did not imply that.
Does not the States have laws about public establishments? Once a business is open to the public it usually falls under different laws from pure private property. eg the police are free to enter a restaurant and examine the menu without a warrant.
However, since we're talking about facts, we should ask ourselves realistically whether laws against discriminating against one group of people infringe on the rights of another group of people. It's a legitimate question.
That's the thing about rights. As soon as you have more then one person exercising rights there is the potential for conflict. The classic is the limitation on swinging fists ending in the space occupied by another person. More complicated is the right of passage against property (not a home). The right to get service vs the right to refuse service. The right to marry your partner vs the right of people to be offended and stop it. It is complex and when it comes to where the federal government fits in, the Constitution should be a living document, living in the sense of growing through amendments, not through being ignored. But currently the way your country works is by using the Constitution as a guide line and the Constitution will probably need to be reworked to fix it and Americans are so scared of opening that can of worms they couldn't amend the Constitution to make the Air Force legal, an amendment that I'd think would have passed easily and if it didn't pass, well having air arms of the Navy and Army wouldn't be bad.
"Seems the Supreme Court says the 14th allows the Federal government to override State laws that remove equal protection under the law. "
Justice Bradley declared that, so it's fact? If the kid next door claims to be ruler of the universe, should I accept it as fact?
It shows that the answer is not clear cut with different learned Justices coming to different interpretations.
The Supreme Court is no more immune from attempting to power-grab than anyone else. But our country was founded by States which delegated some of their sovereign authority to the Federal government. The Federal government was never intended to be the "ruler" of the States. Rather it was the other way around.
Sadly that state of being was thrown out by Lincoln when he unilaterally declared war on some of the States. As he is considered one of your greatest Presidents it seems the vast majority of Americans agree on the federal power grab and now your country is at the present point.
Other judges and Constitutional scholars have claimed that the 14th Amendment says no such thing. Who deified Bradley?
But all that aside: is Arizona proposing to pass a law that would deny equal protection under the law? How so? There is no law against discriminating against straight people either. Seems to me passing laws that relate specifically to certain groups of people is exactly the opposite of "equal protection under the law".
It does seem that laws have to keep getting more accurate to close loop holes. Stop discrimination on the basis of race and people still discriminate based on religion. Stop discrimination on the basis of religion and people discriminate based on sex, etc. The problem is that a general law like no discrimination gets beat down by the courts, blame the silver tongued lawyers.
I'm not making claims either way. I am definitely against interfering with "equal protection". But we might not agree 100% over whether particular anti-discrimination laws really meet that criterion.
The slippery slope is a real thing and there have been lots of times in the past when it ran counter to peaceful co-existence.
And if no-one wants to sell them something? Taken to the extreme there may be no-one willing to even sell them flour or even land to grow their own. Add in no-one willing to sell them transportation (or imagine if all roads were private) and you have the equivalent of a persons right to swing their fist being more important then the right not to get punched in the face.
There is always give and take when it comes to rights with the right to injure others usually restricted.
You mean the 14th that removed the States right to discriminate?
Sounds like an engineering failure which doesn't mean that it's OK for more engineering failures to be added.
I thought the 14th amendment gave the federal government the power to stop the States from discriminating. Section one in particular,
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Are you saying gay people should not get equal protection of laws?
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Joseph P. Bradley commented in the Civil Rights Cases that “individual invasion of individual rights is not the subject-matter of the [14th] Amendment. It has a deeper and broader scope. It nullifies and makes void all state legislation, and state action of every kind, which impairs the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, or which injures them in life, liberty or property without due process of law, or which denies to any of them the equal protection of the laws.”
Seems the Supreme Court says the 14th allows the Federal government to override State laws that remove equal protection under the law. The rights that go with marriage should be available to all adults and if a State attempts to remove those rights then it seems it would be the Federal governments duty to override those State laws.
And having part of your windshield blocked is safe?
My idiot gauge is actually a gauge, witnessed by having a bad connection to the oil sending unit and the gauge giving different readings. As you say though, it is designed to only give 2 readings though in my vehicles cases it's zero and about 45%.
I did invest in an OBD II reader for my '97 but the '88 is OBD I and I've had to short out a wire and count flashes on the check engine light to get close to a useless diagnoses. EGR not working in my case, ended up being the temperature sending unit for the ECU.
That wouldn't be a bill of attainder, that would just be a very targeted bill. A bill of attainder would be a law that says i kan read is guilty of using Google Glass and sentenced to...
A lawful conviction requires court while a bill of attainder just states that you are guilty and here's the sentence with no judicial oversight.
You do know that (in most places) reading a map while driving is illegal? Why should an exception be made for GPS?
All the evidence I've seen is that having a conversation with an occupant in the vehicle is much safer then using a cell phone. This is mostly due to the occupant having situational awareness so when some tricky piece of driving shows up, they shut up or at least know why you're ignoring them. On top of this is that an occupant can also point out dangerous situations such as yesterday when my wife screamed stop as someone was in my blind spot and going for the same parking spot I was.
I hate talking on the cell when in traffic as the other end has no idea of what is happening and can get uptight just by the conversation being interrupted by having to shift gears.
The dash display can be ignored whereas a heads up display can be more in your face. How often do you need to look at your dash?
Do you reject Benjamin Franklin's messages because he was an abusive arsehole who went to orgies on the tax payers dime while leaving his "wife" to starve? Not to mention his history of being of fucking other peoples wives.
Or Jeffersons messages even though he bought people for sexual purposes?
Or perhaps Washingtons message due to having disgusting teeth?
It's generally accepted that when a foreign power overthrows your government, invades your country or such, fighting back is accepted.
If Iran came over, shot the President, dissolved and jailed Congress etc you wouldn't be fine with bombing, DDOS attacks and violent crusades to get your country back? Why do Americans think they have the right to push around others and when others push back they're in the wrong.
My Fords have idiot gauges. The '88 introduced the idiot oil gauge as people panicked when the engine was hot and idling and the needle dropped, The '97 idiotized the voltmetre, I guess people also freaked out when, with everything on, at idle the voltage dropped down close to 12 volts. Really useful.
Well they could have told the Kuwaitis to stop stealing oil, told Saddam that it is not OK to invade Kuwait and while about it, pushed for human rights in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.
America really bends down to the Saudis too much, hate to think about when they get nukes, a couple of American cities nuked, Iran flattened and women still not allowed to drive.
They're quite willing to fire on "liberals" "socialists" "rebels" or whatever the bogeyman is today. And of course they'll be sent to a different part of the country then where they're from.
History is full of armies shooting on civilians to the point where it really stands out when they refuse.
And average Americans come to Canada for their health care. Actually all the rich people are going other places for their health care, India, Central America and such. You have to be awfully rich to pay American prices.
Start teaching them those concepts early?