A referendum to dissolve parliament and give the prime minister power to make law was submitted to voters, and it passed with 99.9 percent approval, 2,043,300 votes to 1300 votes against.[60] The referendum was widely seen by opponents as a dictatorial act, and the Shah and the rest of the government were effectively stripped of their powers to rule. When Mossadegh dissolved the Parliament, his opponents decried this act because he had effectively given himself "total power". Ironically, this seemingly un-democratic act by a democratically elected prime minister would result in a chain of events leading to his downfall.[6][8]
My goodness, 99.9% in a national election? This is extraordinary.
Hitler's best as a vote-getter was 99.81% Ja's in 1936; Stalin's peak was 99.73% Da's in 1946. Last week Premier Mohammed Mossadegh, the man in the iron cot, topped them all with 99.93%.
This is the way he did it. Having unconstitutionally dissolved the Majlis, Mossadegh ordered a national referendum to judge his act, crying: "The will of the people is above law."
Hitler's best as a vote-getter was 99.81% Ja's in 1936; Stalin's peak was 99.73% Da's in 1946. Last week Premier Mohammed Mossadegh, the man in the iron cot, topped them all with 99.93%.
This is the way he did it. Having unconstitutionally dissolved the Majlis, Mossadegh ordered a national referendum to judge his act, crying: "The will of the people is above law."
That is a bit backwards before you get to the question of improbable election results.
A "Prime Minister" ruling by decree after dissolving parliament and then justifying it with a faked election isn't really much of a democracy, is it?
The Shah was head of state both before and after the coup restoring him to power. The dictator Mossadegh had caused the Shah to flee the country after refusing the Shah's power as head of state to remove him as head of government.
Why do you omit this history? Why pretend that the Shah only held power after he was restored to power and not before as well?
It's insane to think Iran would open up its military facilities for inspection. No country has ever willingly done that except those that have surrendered unconditionally after defeat in war (such as Imperial Japan). It would essentially mean Iran gives up its right to exist as an independent sovereign nation. . . .
. . . Those insisting that Iran open up its military sites are insisting on something they know Iran won't do so as to derail the deal. Their intentions are not sincere.
Unlike ISIS, Iran is a country that has existed continuously for 2500 years.
The people of Persia have existed for thousands of years. The Islamic Republic of Iran has only existed for a few decades, and has fostered suicide bombings and Islamic revolution around the world.
I highly doubt they would self-immolate just for a chance to 'nuke the infidel.'
Much as Germany wouldn't self-immolate just for a chance to kill a few million Jews? Oddly enough there is another country so inclined to attempt that feat. Any guesses on that? You should look into the question of Germany's use of railway shipping to send Jews to death camps versus sending supplies to the fighting fronts.
The coup was a counter-coup. The Iranian PM was the one that overthrew the government, faked an election, dissolved parliament, was ruling by decree, and caused the Shah to flee.
Iran was a pro-Western, pro-American country until we sent the CIA to overthrow their government in 1953 and installed the Shah. If you're going to quote an Israeli PJMedia/Fox News propagandist, you might want to find one with more credibility than Barry Rubin.
The "Horse shit" prefix wasn't needed, at least some of us could identify the content of your post without it.
The government of Iran had been overthrown by the Prime Minister who faked an election, dissolved parliament, and was ruling by decree while ignoring the Shah as constitutional monarch. (You know, the traditional head of government being responsible to head of state?) Not even Stalin faked elections as brazenly as the Iranian PM. The Shah fled for his own safety. The US and UK helped restore the Shah to power, not install him.
Iran was also an ally of Israel but that changed with the Islamic revolution and Iran's turning on the Jewish state as well as the US. The bad blood between Iran and Israel is Iran's doing.
... considering that every Chief Justice since the act of Congress that created it in 1978 has been a conservative (Republican), that may tell you something about the mindset of the FISC. It's certainly not a place to find diverse opinions.
So in your mental map of the universe you wouldn't find a justice appointed by a Republican president voting for something like... say.. "gay marriage" or Obamacare? Perhaps even casting the deciding vote? There may be a gap between your thinking and current events / history.
...it really should come as no surprise that the Court continues to rubberstamp the same stuff they approved before.
If the court found it legal before what would have changed? Nothing. Easy decision for them.
You should probably look into the question of the court forcing the Justice Department to alter applications for warrants. That is far more common than outright rejection. Applications for those warrants are inches thick. Do you think they like to redo them? Do you think they'll just slap some nonsense together just to see if they can slip by? If you think that you probably don't have any insight into the legal system, or the professionalism of judges and lawyers as officers of the court. Why would those jobs be highly competitive and credentialed if you can just slap some nonsense crap together and get by?
So are you thinking constitutional amendment, constitutional convention, a vigorous letter writing / lobbying campaign, or... cough *armed insurrection* cough?
Is the straw that broke the camel's back for you Citizens United, Obamacare, gay marriage, NSA collecting phone records, or warm beer?
... CIA people... spy on Congress... secret kangaroo courts... overseas executions... behind closed doors... spies... blackmailing... Congress or other high elected office... military-industrial complex... secretly ruled by spooks... banksters.
Hatred for America? How do you think that plays out between findings for gay marriage versus findings that allow continued surveillance against terrorism?
It would be great if that were true, but it probably isn't in the long run. Children don't have to consent to lots of things that happen to them now. There are other societies that have or have had child brides, so there are obviously social mechanisms to enable that. With diversity and immigration policies brining in more and more people from those societies I wouldn't be surprised if they considerably outnumber the gay population now. That is before you even consider traditional pedophiles. Over time advocates for minor-adult sex will have more political power. Speaking of political power, I hear there is a former Speaker of the House paying millions in hush money over sex with a minor decades ago. Besides, there are 50 years of prep coming to enable it, academicians working on normalizing minor-adult sex now, just as there were people doing that for homosexuality decades ago. In some parts of society, such as Hollywood, powerful people are known as child abusers, and nothing is said. Fifty years ago homosexual marriage couldn't happen. Today child marriage "can't happen," but that isn't likely to remain true as things stand. Standards were destroyed to enable homosexual marriage, they won't magically reappear when needed to stop child marriages.
Hardly activism to support the equal protection clause.
It's activism if you are distorting the meaning and intent of the amendment to reach a desired end by illegitimate means, by intellectually dishonest means.
The Supreme Court did something similar regarding the understanding of the amendment intended to define slaves as full citizens of the US. They stretched that so that anyone born inside the US now is automatically a citizen, even today, so the US is practically unable to control its citizenship that unlike (IIRC) pretty much every other country. Congress's intent was clear, but that didn't stop them.
All forms of group marriage should be legal as well, as should time limited marriages and any other variants people want to come up with. The governments only legitimate role in marriage is as the enforcer of contracts.
So are you in for child brides too? There are people in the US that want that. Actually we'll probably end up fighting that battle in 50 years or less.
it's a process of refinement to get closer to the original intent: maximization of freedom
The phase you are looking for is Liberty, which had a constraints to it. The US is heading further along the road of license, something abhorred by the Founders. You should really look into the distinction.
But right now we have a serious dearth of serious contenders on the right.
The problem is a lack of serious commentary about the right, not a lack of serious contenders. Pretty much any of the many governors running would be a better overall choice than either Clinton or Sanders. Some of them would be far better.
The states have a poor record on the subject of minority rights. Such as slavery. And segregation. And so forth.
Might I suggest the same to you? The Federal government hasn't exactly always been a shining light itself. How many states waged Indian Wars? Any thoughts about the existence of black regiments in the Army? There may be a few more examples....
You need to read about Westboro Baptist Church. They've already proven the you are wrong. And they did it at the Supreme Court.
I'm pretty sure that 10-20 people doesn't constitute a meaningful portion of the religious experience of the US. And not all government officials are all sweetness and light in their treatment of members of America's religious communities.
it is clear that people of faith and their beliefs should not be hindered in the public square.
Exactly, if religious extremists want to use our public squares to behead the infidels, we should not be allowed to stop them
I think you've just demonstrated the wisdom in this quote:
I'd rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University. - William F. Buckley, Jr.
The court isn't telling all 50 states what to do. It's telling them what to STOP doing, which is stop banning gay marriage and unjustly and unconstitutionally violating the rights of a segment of the populace.
Actually the court is telling all 50 states what to do. The states laws generally defined marriage as between a man and a woman. To the extent that there were actual bans it was in essence a clarification of policy or defensive measures. That is pretty simple to understand. But in this case the court is telling the states that they have to expand the definition to include other possibilities than just a man and woman.
And the democratic process angle is bogus, besides being essentially the same argument the South eventually went to war over. Civil rights and freedoms cannot be left to popular vote. If we did that, the histories of slavery, jim crow, and interracial marriage would have been a lot different...specifically longer lasting.
Slavery was ended by amending the US Constitution. That was done by votes, not decree. Jim Crow and the associated nonsense was ended by a combination of laws passed by Congress (with Republican support against the Democrats running the segregated South), court decisions, and executive actions such as the use of the Army to enforce court orders or policy by Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy.
I am worried about what this will do to domestic partnerships. There are a lot of people under the insurance and other things of their domestic partners. Does this mean forced marriage?
I believe that is already happening at the Federal level. I seem to recall reading that the policy for the military is you have to be married if you want benefits for the "significant other" if you are from a state that allows it. I doubt all of the activists will be pleased.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for the links, saved me some trouble. From Wikipedia:
1953 Iranian coup d'état
A referendum to dissolve parliament and give the prime minister power to make law was submitted to voters, and it passed with 99.9 percent approval, 2,043,300 votes to 1300 votes against.[60] The referendum was widely seen by opponents as a dictatorial act, and the Shah and the rest of the government were effectively stripped of their powers to rule. When Mossadegh dissolved the Parliament, his opponents decried this act because he had effectively given himself "total power". Ironically, this seemingly un-democratic act by a democratically elected prime minister would result in a chain of events leading to his downfall.[6][8]
My goodness, 99.9% in a national election? This is extraordinary.
IRAN: 99.93% Pure
Hitler's best as a vote-getter was 99.81% Ja's in 1936; Stalin's peak was 99.73% Da's in 1946. Last week Premier Mohammed Mossadegh, the man in the iron cot, topped them all with 99.93%.
This is the way he did it. Having unconstitutionally dissolved the Majlis, Mossadegh ordered a national referendum to judge his act, crying: "The will of the people is above law."
Bollocks. The Iranian PM (and democratically elected government) ....
"democratically elected government" eh?
IRAN: 99.93% Pure
Hitler's best as a vote-getter was 99.81% Ja's in 1936; Stalin's peak was 99.73% Da's in 1946. Last week Premier Mohammed Mossadegh, the man in the iron cot, topped them all with 99.93%.
This is the way he did it. Having unconstitutionally dissolved the Majlis, Mossadegh ordered a national referendum to judge his act, crying: "The will of the people is above law."
That is a bit backwards before you get to the question of improbable election results.
A "Prime Minister" ruling by decree after dissolving parliament and then justifying it with a faked election isn't really much of a democracy, is it?
The Shah was head of state both before and after the coup restoring him to power. The dictator Mossadegh had caused the Shah to flee the country after refusing the Shah's power as head of state to remove him as head of government.
Why do you omit this history? Why pretend that the Shah only held power after he was restored to power and not before as well?
I strongly suggest that you don't test your theories in court, get a lawyer.
It's insane to think Iran would open up its military facilities for inspection. No country has ever willingly done that except those that have surrendered unconditionally after defeat in war (such as Imperial Japan). It would essentially mean Iran gives up its right to exist as an independent sovereign nation. . . .
. . . Those insisting that Iran open up its military sites are insisting on something they know Iran won't do so as to derail the deal. Their intentions are not sincere.
Do tell.
U.S. Missile Base Braces for Soviet Inspectors
SOVIET INF MONITORS COMPLETE FIRST U.S. INSPECTIONS
Have a great day Comrade.
I'm pretty sure the judges that rotate in for FISA court duty don't hate the US, but I like your bucking of the Slashmind conspiracy ideas.
Unlike ISIS, Iran is a country that has existed continuously for 2500 years.
The people of Persia have existed for thousands of years. The Islamic Republic of Iran has only existed for a few decades, and has fostered suicide bombings and Islamic revolution around the world.
I highly doubt they would self-immolate just for a chance to 'nuke the infidel.'
Much as Germany wouldn't self-immolate just for a chance to kill a few million Jews? Oddly enough there is another country so inclined to attempt that feat. Any guesses on that? You should look into the question of Germany's use of railway shipping to send Jews to death camps versus sending supplies to the fighting fronts.
The coup was a counter-coup. The Iranian PM was the one that overthrew the government, faked an election, dissolved parliament, was ruling by decree, and caused the Shah to flee.
Horse shit.
Iran was a pro-Western, pro-American country until we sent the CIA to overthrow their government in 1953 and installed the Shah. If you're going to quote an Israeli PJMedia/Fox News propagandist, you might want to find one with more credibility than Barry Rubin.
The "Horse shit" prefix wasn't needed, at least some of us could identify the content of your post without it.
The government of Iran had been overthrown by the Prime Minister who faked an election, dissolved parliament, and was ruling by decree while ignoring the Shah as constitutional monarch. (You know, the traditional head of government being responsible to head of state?) Not even Stalin faked elections as brazenly as the Iranian PM. The Shah fled for his own safety. The US and UK helped restore the Shah to power, not install him.
Iran was also an ally of Israel but that changed with the Islamic revolution and Iran's turning on the Jewish state as well as the US. The bad blood between Iran and Israel is Iran's doing.
... considering that every Chief Justice since the act of Congress that created it in 1978 has been a conservative (Republican), that may tell you something about the mindset of the FISC. It's certainly not a place to find diverse opinions.
So in your mental map of the universe you wouldn't find a justice appointed by a Republican president voting for something like ... say .. "gay marriage" or Obamacare? Perhaps even casting the deciding vote? There may be a gap between your thinking and current events / history.
If the court found it legal before what would have changed? Nothing. Easy decision for them.
You should probably look into the question of the court forcing the Justice Department to alter applications for warrants. That is far more common than outright rejection. Applications for those warrants are inches thick. Do you think they like to redo them? Do you think they'll just slap some nonsense together just to see if they can slip by? If you think that you probably don't have any insight into the legal system, or the professionalism of judges and lawyers as officers of the court. Why would those jobs be highly competitive and credentialed if you can just slap some nonsense crap together and get by?
So are you thinking constitutional amendment, constitutional convention, a vigorous letter writing / lobbying campaign, or ... cough *armed insurrection* cough?
Is the straw that broke the camel's back for you Citizens United, Obamacare, gay marriage, NSA collecting phone records, or warm beer?
... CIA people ... spy on Congress ... secret kangaroo courts ... overseas executions ... behind closed doors ... spies ... blackmailing ... Congress or other high elected office ... military-industrial complex ... secretly ruled by spooks ... banksters.
BINGO!!
Who are these judges appointed to the FISA court? Is a prerequisite a hatred for America, or is this something they develop once on the bench?
They are ordinary judges that serve on a rotating basis on that court. They are selected by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
The judges who preside over America's secret court
Hatred for America? How do you think that plays out between findings for gay marriage versus findings that allow continued surveillance against terrorism?
When you find an extra tough, virulent, deadly bacteria, don't let the damn thing get loose!
It would be great if that were true, but it probably isn't in the long run. Children don't have to consent to lots of things that happen to them now. There are other societies that have or have had child brides, so there are obviously social mechanisms to enable that. With diversity and immigration policies brining in more and more people from those societies I wouldn't be surprised if they considerably outnumber the gay population now. That is before you even consider traditional pedophiles. Over time advocates for minor-adult sex will have more political power. Speaking of political power, I hear there is a former Speaker of the House paying millions in hush money over sex with a minor decades ago. Besides, there are 50 years of prep coming to enable it, academicians working on normalizing minor-adult sex now, just as there were people doing that for homosexuality decades ago. In some parts of society, such as Hollywood, powerful people are known as child abusers, and nothing is said. Fifty years ago homosexual marriage couldn't happen. Today child marriage "can't happen," but that isn't likely to remain true as things stand. Standards were destroyed to enable homosexual marriage, they won't magically reappear when needed to stop child marriages.
Hardly activism to support the equal protection clause.
It's activism if you are distorting the meaning and intent of the amendment to reach a desired end by illegitimate means, by intellectually dishonest means.
The Supreme Court did something similar regarding the understanding of the amendment intended to define slaves as full citizens of the US. They stretched that so that anyone born inside the US now is automatically a citizen, even today, so the US is practically unable to control its citizenship that unlike (IIRC) pretty much every other country. Congress's intent was clear, but that didn't stop them.
All forms of group marriage should be legal as well, as should time limited marriages and any other variants people want to come up with. The governments only legitimate role in marriage is as the enforcer of contracts.
So are you in for child brides too? There are people in the US that want that. Actually we'll probably end up fighting that battle in 50 years or less.
Speaking of bull .....
You should try rereading it, perhaps slower. Maybe then you will catch the rebuke he is giving to other members of the court.
it's a process of refinement to get closer to the original intent: maximization of freedom
The phase you are looking for is Liberty, which had a constraints to it. The US is heading further along the road of license, something abhorred by the Founders. You should really look into the distinction.
But right now we have a serious dearth of serious contenders on the right.
The problem is a lack of serious commentary about the right, not a lack of serious contenders. Pretty much any of the many governors running would be a better overall choice than either Clinton or Sanders. Some of them would be far better.
You might want to read some history.
The states have a poor record on the subject of minority rights. Such as slavery. And segregation. And so forth.
Might I suggest the same to you? The Federal government hasn't exactly always been a shining light itself. How many states waged Indian Wars? Any thoughts about the existence of black regiments in the Army? There may be a few more examples....
You need to read about Westboro Baptist Church. They've already proven the you are wrong. And they did it at the Supreme Court.
I'm pretty sure that 10-20 people doesn't constitute a meaningful portion of the religious experience of the US. And not all government officials are all sweetness and light in their treatment of members of America's religious communities.
There isn't much Christian in "Christian" Identity.
it is clear that people of faith and their beliefs should not be hindered in the public square.
Exactly, if religious extremists want to use our public squares to behead the infidels, we should not be allowed to stop them
I think you've just demonstrated the wisdom in this quote:
I'd rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University. - William F. Buckley, Jr.
The court isn't telling all 50 states what to do.
It's telling them what to STOP doing, which is stop banning gay marriage and unjustly and unconstitutionally violating the rights of a segment of the populace.
Actually the court is telling all 50 states what to do. The states laws generally defined marriage as between a man and a woman. To the extent that there were actual bans it was in essence a clarification of policy or defensive measures. That is pretty simple to understand. But in this case the court is telling the states that they have to expand the definition to include other possibilities than just a man and woman.
And the democratic process angle is bogus, besides being essentially the same argument the South eventually went to war over.
Civil rights and freedoms cannot be left to popular vote. If we did that, the histories of slavery, jim crow, and interracial marriage would have been a lot different...specifically longer lasting.
Slavery was ended by amending the US Constitution. That was done by votes, not decree. Jim Crow and the associated nonsense was ended by a combination of laws passed by Congress (with Republican support against the Democrats running the segregated South), court decisions, and executive actions such as the use of the Army to enforce court orders or policy by Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy.
I am worried about what this will do to domestic partnerships. There are a lot of people under the insurance and other things of their domestic partners. Does this mean forced marriage?
I believe that is already happening at the Federal level. I seem to recall reading that the policy for the military is you have to be married if you want benefits for the "significant other" if you are from a state that allows it. I doubt all of the activists will be pleased.