Brackets is designed for editing HTML, CSS, and JavaScript. And its preview only works with Chrome.
Atom is more of a general-purpose editor. Although the internals of Atom are done with Webkit, and things like syntax highlighting is configured in simple CSS (LESS) files.
"The editor can not be downloaded anywhere. They don't even tell you what platforms it supports â" although someone on Reddit mentioned it only supports Macintosh. I am not signing up to their marketing e-mails before they actually tell me what I am even getting in return."
I got an invite, which took me to a page saying "Download for Mac"... which is not too unusual. But then I didn't find any links to any other OS versions. So, thinking I could only get it for Windows if it auto-detected Windows, I fired up a copy of Windows and went back to the page... which still said Download for Mac.
Maybe Windows version is in the works, I don't know.
It's a pretty nice editor, if a bit rough around the edges. I've been giving it a spin. It reminds me a lot of TextMate. But unlike TextMate, it does split windows.
To me it seems to strike a pretty decent balance, between TextMate's ease-of-use and Sublime's hard-of-use but split window editing ability.
(Not saying Sublime is really hard to use, but it's kind of eccentric in the way it does a lot of things.)
"Seriously, what the fuck difference does it make what sex, race or religion you are to be in IT??!?!"
Whenever I've said the same thing, even more politely, I've been accused of being a bigot.
Regardless, the latter part of OP sounds like just yet another woman blaming the shortage of women in tech on discrimination, when studies have consistently found that is not the cause. I mean, not just one study or two, but many of them over a period of decades.
"Following your analogy, it does matter who you send. Because if the person who shows up is told "you're not my boss" and then has no real power to enforce that they are in fact the boss then who you send is a big deal."
It's only an analogy, but if we're really following it: I can give authority to negotiate contracts on my behalf to anyone I want.
According to the Supreme Court itself, the 16th Amendment actually gives no new taxation powers to the Federal government. So that argument doesn't fly. (Of course, this is just another example of the Supreme Court contradicting itself, which is another reason it was never given authority to be the "ultimate arbiter" of constitutionality.)
But as for "the reality" of the situation, again as the Supreme Court itself has ruled: the longevity of unconstitutional rule or situation does not make it any less unconstitutional. It could be 1000 years and it would still be wrong.
"If you consent to a search what is the point of requiring a warrant anyway?"
I would ask: what right does the "occupant" have? In this case, she might have lived there, but what if there is an "occupant" who doesn't live there? Just somebody visiting. Or even a door-to-door salesman who was left alone in the home for 5 minutes while the owner was out back.
There is a right of ownership (and rights of occupancy, for that matter) in this country. Ignoring that leaves the door open to all kinds of abuses.
Further, the majority argument that warrants "are a burden" has never before been an accepted legal argument for changing the law. Where the hell did that come from?
"Anybody in their right mind would just tell the pigs to fuck off and get a warrant but I digress."
I would not have said "pigs" but otherwise I agree. The thing is that there are a lot of naive people out there.
"When the Constitution was amended in 1913 to make Senators directly elected it stopped being for the States and became a direct servant to the people."
Yes, I do disagree, and I am not alone in that disagreement. But I am aware that you are not alone, either.
As for the 17th Amendment, I agree that it should never have been passed. But in the context of the analogy above: does who you send to the negotiating table matter to the relationship between employer and employee? I would argue not.
Regardless of how it shakes out, no matter how you look at it we still very clearly have a Federal government that took power without legitimate Constitutional authority; that makes it an illegal government by international law.
"I guess you're saying you require proof that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (the first law listed listed on that page) applies universally across the US."
No, that wasn't what I'm saying and that isn't what I'm saying. You said that page was proof of what you were saying. But that page is proof of nothing. The end. I wasn't asking for other proof.
I'm am NOT disputing that we are guaranteed equal protection under the law. Okay? So let's get that straight.
But having said that: none of that is any guarantee that any particular State anti-discrimination law actually serves to give us that equal protection. It depends on the law, and it depends on the context.
The Federal government originally justified the Civil Rights Act under the "commerce clause", which gives it authority over businesses involved in interstate trade. (In the Wickard v. Filburn decision, the Supreme Court tried to claim that the commerce clause gave the Federal government authority to regulate nearly anything, anywhere. But now many States, backed by Constitutional scholars and even judges, are pushing back on that idea. It is a clear example of Federal overreach.)
The government later expanded their justification for the Civil Rights Act to include the "equal protection" clause. I will buy that. We ARE guaranteed equal protection by the Constitution.
But again, whether a particular law actually guarantees us that equal protection is another story.
Anyway, you may not expect this but the long and short of it is: my comment that Federal laws only apply to certain businesses in this context was wrong... I wasn't thinking about the equal protection clause. BUT... the page you linked wasn't "proof" of that, it was just a list of laws.
"All that said they gave the people a tool for changing the document. Right or wrong, like it or not, they made it a framework and accepting their fallibility they made it changeable."
No, you're still not getting it. Let me give you an analogy. It may not be a perfect analogy, but it conveys the idea:
Let's say my neighbors and I all get together and agree to hire a security service to patrol the neighborhood. We establish a 1-year contract that is negotiable over time.
Now, when it is time to renegotiate the contract, the security firm claims that only it has the power to decide the terms, and whatever you say doesn't matter. It will set the terms to whatever it wants, and you have to live with it.
Was that action legal? Did your contract state anywhere that the security firm had the right to unilaterally decide its own place in the contract? Of course not. There is no way you'd put up with that. You'd fire them and get a different firm.
Similarly, an amendment does not give the federal government the power to change the relationship between the states and the federal government. There are other aspects of government that it might change, but that isn't one of them. Ultimately the Federal government is still the employee, subject to the desires of the states.
That is why I suggested reading that particular Madison piece. He explains quite clearly that thinking the Federal government (including the Supreme Court, which is PART of the Federal government) may decide its own power is not just against the entire design of the government, it is a logical fallacy. Like the kid next door, they can claim it all they want; that does not make it so in reality. On the contrary, it is precisely that kind of political power-grabbing he is warning about.
"On any other hypothesis, the delegation of judicial power would annul the authority delegating it; and the concurrence of this department with the others in usurped powers might subvert forever, and beyond the possible reach of any rightful remedy, the very Constitution which all were instituted to preserve." -- James Madison, Report of 1800
And I will repeat: it is not just Madision I am relying on here. A great many Constitutional scholars agree with me: the Bradley court's decision amounted in all practical ways to somebody declaring themselves rulers of all, without any legal authority to do so. If it happened anywhere else, it would be called a "political coup" and the installation of an illegal government.
"To put it bluntly: He was making the exact same points as you, so maybe you should consider posts more carefully before 'rebuffing' ones that agree with you. "
Maybe YOU should read posts more carefully. I wasn't "rebuffing" him, I was agreeing with him and being chatty. You got a problem with that?
"Is it ok for a company to have a policy of only promoting men to senior positions? Is it ok for a department store to only admit and serve white customers? "
Neither of these have anything to do with what either of us were saying, and both the content and manner of asking imply trolling, so I'm going to ignore them.
"The page I linked to lists eight federal laws that apply to *all* US businesses"
And does it say on that page that it applies to every business in the U.S.?
Funny, but I don't see that anywhere. And unless it says that, that page isn't proof of your claim. Which is what I said before.
It's easy enough to write a rule or law that says "everybody must do this", but if you have no authority over that everybody, then it is not true that they must do it.
Laws are often written using that kind of language. For example, a State law may say "it is unlawful for anyone to do X." Clearly, even though the law SAYS "everyone", it doesn't apply to someone in another state.
In exactly the same way, lots of Federal laws claim to apply to everybody but don't. There are LOTS of things over which the Federal government has no jurisdiction.
I am amused by someone modding comments "flamebait" for just giving rude and insulting people a taste of their own medicine. How about the people who started it, eh?
Did you really just compare Justice Bradley, a US Supreme Court Justice, and his opinion joined by the majority of a court appointed by elected Representatives of the US Senate as nominated by the President of the US as authorized by the US Constitution (which you herald later as the absolute power) to the imagined powers of the neighbor kid!?!?
NO, I did not. You misunderstood what I was saying. Maybe I didn't put it clearly.
I have studied American history, and Constitutional history in particular, for many years. The fact -- which you will not learn in public school but which is a matter of public record and IS in many adult history books -- is that when the States formed the Union, they did not raise "the general government", as it was often put, above the States. Rather, the Federal government was a convenience for the States to do certain things together. Like manage a common currency, settle disputes between the States, and defend against foreign invasion.
But something that is VERY clear from the ratification debates among the States, is that the States were guaranteed that they would retain their essential sovereignty. In fact it was a condition that the states insisted upon before they would ratify the Constitution. 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.
In the early days of the U.S., many people, including Jefferson and Madison, and including during those ratification debates and afterward, spoke and wrote about this principle.
I suggest you read James Madison's "Report of 1800" before the Virginia legislature. He discusses this same issue, and explains how the States must retain the ultimate right to determine whether the Federal government has overstepped the Constitution, not the Supreme Court. Because (A) the States created the Federal government to act as their servant, not the other way around, and (B) the Supreme Court is no more immune to corruption and power-grabbing than any other branch of the Federal government, which is a problem because (C) the Federal government was never given the authority to decide what its own power should be.
It is very well written and his logic is impeccable. I highly recommend giving it a read. But that's just one example. Don't think I'm relying on just his word... there are reams upon reams of historical writings that reference the subject.
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.
In THAT sense, but only in that sense, was Bradley acting like the kid next door who declares himself ruler of the universe. Both declarations are completely without any actual legal authority to give them weight. In point of fact, the Bradley court's decision is exactly one of the big things the Founders warned us about.
"Their neighbor's supreme court just recently ruled that photographers who had previously taken wedding photos are now compelled to take all similar wedding and reception photographs, regardless of the individual's beliefs and preferences. The ruling was also worded to include other types of photography and other types of businesses. If the photographer had taken shots at traditional weddings, they must now photograph non-traditional weddings. Similarly, if the photographer had attended straight porn filmings they must now attend all non-straight types if asked. If they had once taken nude non-pornographic shots of women, they must now attend all genders and types of events if asked. If a caterer attends traditional weddings they must attend non-traditional weddings. If a band plays for traditional weddings they must play for non-traditional weddings."
I am sure some people would disagree with me, but to me, that law is clearly discriminatory. In attempting to enforce "equal treatment for all" it is in fact doing the opposite, from what I understand.
"Businesses that deal in non-sexual contexts clearly have no need to discriminate for sexual orientation. "
I don't think "need" is really the right context here.
"Businesses that deal with weddings (which are inherently sexual) in any way, such as church buildings holding the events, musicians performing at the events, caterers, and so many others, all of them are pulled into the sexual debate simply by virtue of their presence."
Right. But what of their own desire to be left alone, and to leave others alone? This makes them subject to bullying by minorities because then the minority member can say "You won't do it for me... it HAS TO be discrimination!" Regardless of whether it is true, that can cause big problems for people.
And please don't tell me people won't do that because I've seen people do that with my own eyes. (Not that you would try to tell me that... just a figure of speech.)
To put it bluntly: while other people here obviously think otherwise by their comments, I'm very much behind equal treatment for all. But not all "anti-discrimination" laws really serve to guarantee equality. I think some definitely do more harm than good. Nevertheless, some people seem to think that anybody who even questions PC-think must be a bigot. And there are some, I am quite sure, who don't really think that but will say that anyway.
Let me add one more thing. I believe this as a matter of principle but I do not claim that it is always true in every instance: It doesn't seem to me that institutionalizing discrimination is an effective way to cure discrimination. Or to put it a different way: we already have guarantees of equal treatment under the law. And today (finally) many people are actually starting to believe it. So my question is: how does passing laws that specify different treatment for certain groups of people promote equal opportunity under the law?
"Yes, it does. Now my counterquestion: if that social power is heavily skewed against minorities, is it a bad thing to skew it to more of a balance?"
Maybe. It depends on how many toes you have to step on in order to make people un-step on others.
But here's another one for you. Do you have any evidence that such laws -- as opposed to, say, social pressure -- and today, not in the 50s or 60s, actually result in much less discrimination? My guess is that social pressure is more effective.
Again, I'm not pretending to have the answers here. I'm just asking questions. The problems with laws is that they are almost never 100% good. They nearly always do some bad as well.
Many, many times I have seen people push for laws because of the good they think the law will do, while totally ignoring the unintended consequences or the bad the law might do. And that's bad.
--
You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered." -- Lyndon B. Johnson
"You made the broad claim, not I. I followed your broad claim, that you now seek to narrow. "
Nonsense. I'm not narrowing anything. I was stating that the "exceptions" you cite aren't genuine exceptions. The Federal government does not regulate the principles of contract law. It is a matter of Common Law and a matter for the courts to decide. Federal courts may decide whether a law conflicts with Common Law, or vice versa, but that's not the same thing.
I am not "narrowing my argument". I agreed with some of your points but I was saying -- and still say -- they aren't exceptions to what I was saying. We're talking about two different things.
"Now I see it as the fantasy it is, because without some compelling financial gain in taking trips up there for anything besides tourism for the super-rich, I think we are going to stay stuck on this rock."
What a silly thing to say.
There are already real commercial proposals to mine the moon. There are also private, commercial proposals to mine asteroids. Sure, neither one will happen tomorrow but the important thing is that it's beginning to look feasible.
Further, just because Obama is myopic and wants to ignore the moon, that doesn't mean other nations are. Which is just yet another strike against him. Get a President with a head on his shoulders in office, and maybe we'll be back there within a few years.
"I have no idea who you are, but the amount of angry swearing and blowhard-on-the-Internet-playing-a-SCOTUS-judge you're doing is fucking hilarious.
You may be dull, but you are also quite the clown. Thank you for entertaining me.
For your information: when some clueless jerk who provably doesn't know the slightest thing about what they're talking about jumps into the conversation and insults me out of the blue, swearing is clearly justified.
There exists no social rule that says I have to just sit there and put up with abuse from someone who doesn't even know me and doesn't understand the subject under discussion.
"You may be dull, but you are also quite the clown. Thank you for entertaining me."
And that includes you. Maybe you're entertained, but that doesn't give you license to jump in and add insults of your own. Nobody asked for heckling from the cheap seats. But since you have, I am free to reply in kind, numbnuts.
"Article 1, Section 10 references contracts, a common law item, so by its very nature accepts it and relies on it for adjudication"
INSOFAR as those contracts relate to interstate trade. This isn't a refutation of what I was saying. The Federal government might rule that a State has interfered with contract law. That doesn't give it authority over Contract Law itself.
"Since the judiciary, especially the Federal judiciary, relies on English Common Law to regularly settle contract issues of an interstate nature by its very nature the Federal government adjudicates Common Law often"
INSOFAR as it relates to interstate trade (commerce clause). But again... you are making generalizations. This has nothing specific to do with contract law. The Federal government has the power to "regulate" interstate trade, but that does not give it authority over Contract Law. You are invalidly conflating one with the other.
"Marriages are treated, in Federal court (witness testimony, etc) as a contract and for purposes of severability (Bankruptcy law) are handled as such"
Irrelevant. The marriage laws in question are governed by State, not Federal law. The Federal government might treat it as a contract but that contract is in accordance with State, not Federal, law.
"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.
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.
"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?
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.
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".
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.
Slashdot Mirror
"How does this compare to Brackets?"
Brackets is designed for editing HTML, CSS, and JavaScript. And its preview only works with Chrome.
Atom is more of a general-purpose editor. Although the internals of Atom are done with Webkit, and things like syntax highlighting is configured in simple CSS (LESS) files.
"The editor can not be downloaded anywhere. They don't even tell you what platforms it supports â" although someone on Reddit mentioned it only supports Macintosh. I am not signing up to their marketing e-mails before they actually tell me what I am even getting in return."
I got an invite, which took me to a page saying "Download for Mac"... which is not too unusual. But then I didn't find any links to any other OS versions. So, thinking I could only get it for Windows if it auto-detected Windows, I fired up a copy of Windows and went back to the page... which still said Download for Mac.
Maybe Windows version is in the works, I don't know.
It's a pretty nice editor, if a bit rough around the edges. I've been giving it a spin. It reminds me a lot of TextMate. But unlike TextMate, it does split windows.
To me it seems to strike a pretty decent balance, between TextMate's ease-of-use and Sublime's hard-of-use but split window editing ability.
(Not saying Sublime is really hard to use, but it's kind of eccentric in the way it does a lot of things.)
"Seriously, what the fuck difference does it make what sex, race or religion you are to be in IT??!?!"
Whenever I've said the same thing, even more politely, I've been accused of being a bigot.
Regardless, the latter part of OP sounds like just yet another woman blaming the shortage of women in tech on discrimination, when studies have consistently found that is not the cause. I mean, not just one study or two, but many of them over a period of decades.
"Following your analogy, it does matter who you send. Because if the person who shows up is told "you're not my boss" and then has no real power to enforce that they are in fact the boss then who you send is a big deal."
It's only an analogy, but if we're really following it: I can give authority to negotiate contracts on my behalf to anyone I want.
According to the Supreme Court itself, the 16th Amendment actually gives no new taxation powers to the Federal government. So that argument doesn't fly. (Of course, this is just another example of the Supreme Court contradicting itself, which is another reason it was never given authority to be the "ultimate arbiter" of constitutionality.)
But as for "the reality" of the situation, again as the Supreme Court itself has ruled: the longevity of unconstitutional rule or situation does not make it any less unconstitutional. It could be 1000 years and it would still be wrong.
Yeah, saying they're "bled alive" is a lot like saying you are "bled alive" every time you donate blood. A bit misleading.
"If you consent to a search what is the point of requiring a warrant anyway?"
I would ask: what right does the "occupant" have? In this case, she might have lived there, but what if there is an "occupant" who doesn't live there? Just somebody visiting. Or even a door-to-door salesman who was left alone in the home for 5 minutes while the owner was out back.
There is a right of ownership (and rights of occupancy, for that matter) in this country. Ignoring that leaves the door open to all kinds of abuses.
Further, the majority argument that warrants "are a burden" has never before been an accepted legal argument for changing the law. Where the hell did that come from?
"Anybody in their right mind would just tell the pigs to fuck off and get a warrant but I digress."
I would not have said "pigs" but otherwise I agree. The thing is that there are a lot of naive people out there.
"When the Constitution was amended in 1913 to make Senators directly elected it stopped being for the States and became a direct servant to the people."
Yes, I do disagree, and I am not alone in that disagreement. But I am aware that you are not alone, either.
As for the 17th Amendment, I agree that it should never have been passed. But in the context of the analogy above: does who you send to the negotiating table matter to the relationship between employer and employee? I would argue not.
Regardless of how it shakes out, no matter how you look at it we still very clearly have a Federal government that took power without legitimate Constitutional authority; that makes it an illegal government by international law.
"I guess you're saying you require proof that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (the first law listed listed on that page) applies universally across the US."
No, that wasn't what I'm saying and that isn't what I'm saying. You said that page was proof of what you were saying. But that page is proof of nothing. The end. I wasn't asking for other proof.
I'm am NOT disputing that we are guaranteed equal protection under the law. Okay? So let's get that straight.
But having said that: none of that is any guarantee that any particular State anti-discrimination law actually serves to give us that equal protection. It depends on the law, and it depends on the context.
The Federal government originally justified the Civil Rights Act under the "commerce clause", which gives it authority over businesses involved in interstate trade. (In the Wickard v. Filburn decision, the Supreme Court tried to claim that the commerce clause gave the Federal government authority to regulate nearly anything, anywhere. But now many States, backed by Constitutional scholars and even judges, are pushing back on that idea. It is a clear example of Federal overreach.)
The government later expanded their justification for the Civil Rights Act to include the "equal protection" clause. I will buy that. We ARE guaranteed equal protection by the Constitution.
But again, whether a particular law actually guarantees us that equal protection is another story.
Anyway, you may not expect this but the long and short of it is: my comment that Federal laws only apply to certain businesses in this context was wrong... I wasn't thinking about the equal protection clause. BUT... the page you linked wasn't "proof" of that, it was just a list of laws.
"All that said they gave the people a tool for changing the document. Right or wrong, like it or not, they made it a framework and accepting their fallibility they made it changeable."
No, you're still not getting it. Let me give you an analogy. It may not be a perfect analogy, but it conveys the idea:
Let's say my neighbors and I all get together and agree to hire a security service to patrol the neighborhood. We establish a 1-year contract that is negotiable over time.
Now, when it is time to renegotiate the contract, the security firm claims that only it has the power to decide the terms, and whatever you say doesn't matter. It will set the terms to whatever it wants, and you have to live with it.
Was that action legal? Did your contract state anywhere that the security firm had the right to unilaterally decide its own place in the contract? Of course not. There is no way you'd put up with that. You'd fire them and get a different firm.
Similarly, an amendment does not give the federal government the power to change the relationship between the states and the federal government. There are other aspects of government that it might change, but that isn't one of them. Ultimately the Federal government is still the employee, subject to the desires of the states.
That is why I suggested reading that particular Madison piece. He explains quite clearly that thinking the Federal government (including the Supreme Court, which is PART of the Federal government) may decide its own power is not just against the entire design of the government, it is a logical fallacy. Like the kid next door, they can claim it all they want; that does not make it so in reality. On the contrary, it is precisely that kind of political power-grabbing he is warning about.
"On any other hypothesis, the delegation of judicial power would annul the authority delegating it; and the concurrence of this department with the others in usurped powers might subvert forever, and beyond the possible reach of any rightful remedy, the very Constitution which all were instituted to preserve." -- James Madison, Report of 1800
And I will repeat: it is not just Madision I am relying on here. A great many Constitutional scholars agree with me: the Bradley court's decision amounted in all practical ways to somebody declaring themselves rulers of all, without any legal authority to do so. If it happened anywhere else, it would be called a "political coup" and the installation of an illegal government.
"To put it bluntly: He was making the exact same points as you, so maybe you should consider posts more carefully before 'rebuffing' ones that agree with you. "
Maybe YOU should read posts more carefully. I wasn't "rebuffing" him, I was agreeing with him and being chatty. You got a problem with that?
"Is it ok for a company to have a policy of only promoting men to senior positions? Is it ok for a department store to only admit and serve white customers? "
Neither of these have anything to do with what either of us were saying, and both the content and manner of asking imply trolling, so I'm going to ignore them.
Cool! Thanks!
"The page I linked to lists eight federal laws that apply to *all* US businesses"
And does it say on that page that it applies to every business in the U.S.?
Funny, but I don't see that anywhere. And unless it says that, that page isn't proof of your claim. Which is what I said before.
It's easy enough to write a rule or law that says "everybody must do this", but if you have no authority over that everybody, then it is not true that they must do it.
Laws are often written using that kind of language. For example, a State law may say "it is unlawful for anyone to do X." Clearly, even though the law SAYS "everyone", it doesn't apply to someone in another state.
In exactly the same way, lots of Federal laws claim to apply to everybody but don't. There are LOTS of things over which the Federal government has no jurisdiction.
I am amused by someone modding comments "flamebait" for just giving rude and insulting people a taste of their own medicine. How about the people who started it, eh?
"Wow...
Did you really just compare Justice Bradley, a US Supreme Court Justice, and his opinion joined by the majority of a court appointed by elected Representatives of the US Senate as nominated by the President of the US as authorized by the US Constitution (which you herald later as the absolute power) to the imagined powers of the neighbor kid!?!?
NO, I did not. You misunderstood what I was saying. Maybe I didn't put it clearly.
I have studied American history, and Constitutional history in particular, for many years. The fact -- which you will not learn in public school but which is a matter of public record and IS in many adult history books -- is that when the States formed the Union, they did not raise "the general government", as it was often put, above the States. Rather, the Federal government was a convenience for the States to do certain things together. Like manage a common currency, settle disputes between the States, and defend against foreign invasion.
But something that is VERY clear from the ratification debates among the States, is that the States were guaranteed that they would retain their essential sovereignty. In fact it was a condition that the states insisted upon before they would ratify the Constitution. 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.
In the early days of the U.S., many people, including Jefferson and Madison, and including during those ratification debates and afterward, spoke and wrote about this principle.
I suggest you read James Madison's "Report of 1800" before the Virginia legislature. He discusses this same issue, and explains how the States must retain the ultimate right to determine whether the Federal government has overstepped the Constitution, not the Supreme Court. Because (A) the States created the Federal government to act as their servant, not the other way around, and (B) the Supreme Court is no more immune to corruption and power-grabbing than any other branch of the Federal government, which is a problem because (C) the Federal government was never given the authority to decide what its own power should be.
It is very well written and his logic is impeccable. I highly recommend giving it a read. But that's just one example. Don't think I'm relying on just his word... there are reams upon reams of historical writings that reference the subject.
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.
In THAT sense, but only in that sense, was Bradley acting like the kid next door who declares himself ruler of the universe. Both declarations are completely without any actual legal authority to give them weight. In point of fact, the Bradley court's decision is exactly one of the big things the Founders warned us about.
"Their neighbor's supreme court just recently ruled that photographers who had previously taken wedding photos are now compelled to take all similar wedding and reception photographs, regardless of the individual's beliefs and preferences. The ruling was also worded to include other types of photography and other types of businesses. If the photographer had taken shots at traditional weddings, they must now photograph non-traditional weddings. Similarly, if the photographer had attended straight porn filmings they must now attend all non-straight types if asked. If they had once taken nude non-pornographic shots of women, they must now attend all genders and types of events if asked. If a caterer attends traditional weddings they must attend non-traditional weddings. If a band plays for traditional weddings they must play for non-traditional weddings."
I am sure some people would disagree with me, but to me, that law is clearly discriminatory. In attempting to enforce "equal treatment for all" it is in fact doing the opposite, from what I understand.
"Businesses that deal in non-sexual contexts clearly have no need to discriminate for sexual orientation. "
I don't think "need" is really the right context here.
"Businesses that deal with weddings (which are inherently sexual) in any way, such as church buildings holding the events, musicians performing at the events, caterers, and so many others, all of them are pulled into the sexual debate simply by virtue of their presence."
Right. But what of their own desire to be left alone, and to leave others alone? This makes them subject to bullying by minorities because then the minority member can say "You won't do it for me... it HAS TO be discrimination!" Regardless of whether it is true, that can cause big problems for people.
And please don't tell me people won't do that because I've seen people do that with my own eyes. (Not that you would try to tell me that... just a figure of speech.)
To put it bluntly: while other people here obviously think otherwise by their comments, I'm very much behind equal treatment for all. But not all "anti-discrimination" laws really serve to guarantee equality. I think some definitely do more harm than good. Nevertheless, some people seem to think that anybody who even questions PC-think must be a bigot. And there are some, I am quite sure, who don't really think that but will say that anyway.
Let me add one more thing. I believe this as a matter of principle but I do not claim that it is always true in every instance: It doesn't seem to me that institutionalizing discrimination is an effective way to cure discrimination. Or to put it a different way: we already have guarantees of equal treatment under the law. And today (finally) many people are actually starting to believe it. So my question is: how does passing laws that specify different treatment for certain groups of people promote equal opportunity under the law?
"Yes, it does. Now my counterquestion: if that social power is heavily skewed against minorities, is it a bad thing to skew it to more of a balance?"
Maybe. It depends on how many toes you have to step on in order to make people un-step on others.
But here's another one for you. Do you have any evidence that such laws -- as opposed to, say, social pressure -- and today, not in the 50s or 60s, actually result in much less discrimination? My guess is that social pressure is more effective.
Again, I'm not pretending to have the answers here. I'm just asking questions. The problems with laws is that they are almost never 100% good. They nearly always do some bad as well.
Many, many times I have seen people push for laws because of the good they think the law will do, while totally ignoring the unintended consequences or the bad the law might do. And that's bad.
--
You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered." -- Lyndon B. Johnson
"You made the broad claim, not I. I followed your broad claim, that you now seek to narrow. "
Nonsense. I'm not narrowing anything. I was stating that the "exceptions" you cite aren't genuine exceptions. The Federal government does not regulate the principles of contract law. It is a matter of Common Law and a matter for the courts to decide. Federal courts may decide whether a law conflicts with Common Law, or vice versa, but that's not the same thing.
I am not "narrowing my argument". I agreed with some of your points but I was saying -- and still say -- they aren't exceptions to what I was saying. We're talking about two different things.
"Now I see it as the fantasy it is, because without some compelling financial gain in taking trips up there for anything besides tourism for the super-rich, I think we are going to stay stuck on this rock."
What a silly thing to say.
There are already real commercial proposals to mine the moon. There are also private, commercial proposals to mine asteroids. Sure, neither one will happen tomorrow but the important thing is that it's beginning to look feasible.
Further, just because Obama is myopic and wants to ignore the moon, that doesn't mean other nations are. Which is just yet another strike against him. Get a President with a head on his shoulders in office, and maybe we'll be back there within a few years.
"You can't, unless you want to pay for it."
And quite a bit. Around $30 is a lot for a "report".
Makes me think this is yet another attempt to sneak in an ad disguised as a discussion piece. We've been seeing an awful lot of those lately.
"I have no idea who you are, but the amount of angry swearing and blowhard-on-the-Internet-playing-a-SCOTUS-judge you're doing is fucking hilarious.
You may be dull, but you are also quite the clown. Thank you for entertaining me.
For your information: when some clueless jerk who provably doesn't know the slightest thing about what they're talking about jumps into the conversation and insults me out of the blue, swearing is clearly justified.
There exists no social rule that says I have to just sit there and put up with abuse from someone who doesn't even know me and doesn't understand the subject under discussion.
"You may be dull, but you are also quite the clown. Thank you for entertaining me."
And that includes you. Maybe you're entertained, but that doesn't give you license to jump in and add insults of your own. Nobody asked for heckling from the cheap seats. But since you have, I am free to reply in kind, numbnuts.
Correction: last paragraph should have read "The marriage CONTRACTS in question are governed by State, not Federal, law."
"Article 1, Section 10 references contracts, a common law item, so by its very nature accepts it and relies on it for adjudication"
INSOFAR as those contracts relate to interstate trade. This isn't a refutation of what I was saying. The Federal government might rule that a State has interfered with contract law. That doesn't give it authority over Contract Law itself.
"Since the judiciary, especially the Federal judiciary, relies on English Common Law to regularly settle contract issues of an interstate nature by its very nature the Federal government adjudicates Common Law often"
INSOFAR as it relates to interstate trade (commerce clause). But again... you are making generalizations. This has nothing specific to do with contract law. The Federal government has the power to "regulate" interstate trade, but that does not give it authority over Contract Law. You are invalidly conflating one with the other.
"Marriages are treated, in Federal court (witness testimony, etc) as a contract and for purposes of severability (Bankruptcy law) are handled as such"
Irrelevant. The marriage laws in question are governed by State, not Federal law. The Federal government might treat it as a contract but that contract is in accordance with State, not Federal, law.
"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.
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.
"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?
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.
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".
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.
"If you stop doing business with assholes, you're going to be out of business in a real hurry."
Hahaha! Good answer. :)