The Fourth Reich

[Belegon]

I'll never get over the irony of people getting "death threats" from people who claim to be acting out of a "respect for the sanctity of life".

 

[elsol]

This is the kind of thing very likely to put a dent in the Republican support.

It's not an 'official' poll... but 89% of 4653 people on MSNBC said that the 'Politicians were pushing their own agenda on this issue, and did not really care about Terri.'

That's just an ugly percentage.

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[elfin_odalisque]

I aggree with you, but surely there is a battle to fight here and now. I read carson's comments and burst into tears, a bit like with your posts and a Shanglan comment.

Isn't this the time to say that everyone of adult age deserves to nominate who speaks for them if they can't?

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I aggree with you, but surely there is a battle to fight here and now. I read carson's comments and burst into tears, a bit like with your posts and a Shanglan comment.

Isn't this the time to say that everyone of adult age deserves to nominate who speaks for them if they can't?

One of the great inequalities that barring gay marriage presents is this. You don't have any say in you rpartner's life or end of life struggles. Even with a batter of proxy's. powers of attorney, etc. if the parents disagree you are facing an uphill court batle.

I knew a very kind gay gentleman who had been living with his partner for over 20 years. When diagnoses with inoperable cancer, I saw the extraordinary lengths he went to, to insure his stranged family didn't try to take the rather large estae from his partner. Especially since they had worked together to build much of it.

It all came to naught. the will is probated, his partner has been forced to seel many of their cherished antiques to support himself though trial after trial. A simple civil union law would have prevented this travesty.

 

[rgraham666]

One of the great inequalities that barring gay marriage presents is this. You don't have any say in you rpartner's life or end of life struggles. Even with a batter of proxy's. powers of attorney, etc. if the parents disagree you are facing an uphill court batle.

I knew a very kind gay gentleman who had been living with his partner for over 20 years. When diagnoses with inoperable cancer, I saw the extraordinary lengths he went to, to insure his stranged family didn't try to take the rather large estae from his partner. Especially since they had worked together to build much of it.

It all came to naught. the will is probated, his partner has been forced to seel many of their cherished antiques to support himself though trial after trial. A simple civil union law would have prevented this travesty.

Shit! Greedy unethical scumbags.

 

[Evil Attorney]

I didn't read past the 1st page, so I may be redundant, but Congress, under article 1, section 8 of the federal constitution, has the right to pass laws laws regarding the jurisdiction of federal courts under Clause 9: To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court; and its own legislative power to create a cause of action in federal courts.

Also under Art 1, sec 8, under the taxing and spending power, congress has the authority to legislate because that facility recieves medicare or some such federal funds, and even if the smallest fraction of it was used to keep the lights on in her room, then that legislation has a good chance of being sustained under that grounds.

I think what some people are confusing thing here with is called a bill of attainder, banned in Art 1, sec 9, Clause 3: No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

This bans law being passed which circumvent due process, meaning congress can not pass a law declaring you guilty of a crime.

They can legislate that this activty is a crime. They can create a police force (fbi) to arrest you, but the judiciary, under article 3 of the constitution, are the ones who must adjudicate your guilt, not congress.

I don't see why all the panties are in a wad over this. Congress does this kind of thing regularly.

 

[Pure]

Scary thought

I haven't read all of this thread, but consider this. The tyrranical measures, invasions of privacy, etc. can, for a time, be gotten past the lawmakers. But it's the courts that would hold them in place.

Similarly, important agenda items of the right, like say, the 'beginning of life, legally protected, is at conception' are unlikely to gather the strong majorities needs for a constitutional amendment to that effect.

So it has to be the Supreme Court that says, 'life begins at conception' or 'torture or lack of counsel is justified' etc.

Conclusion, as much as they talk of a popular movement, key agenda items have to come through the courts. All of this is consistent with the real love of arbirtrary federal power shown by the neo conservatives and evangelical Republicans.

Theocracy enforced in courts is an old American (protestant) tradition, of course; it was Mass Colony that put the ten commandments into law, and iirc, it was Mass state (or maybe Connecticutt) that, a while back, still had 'blue laws' against selling contraceptive devices.

Is Calvinism making a comeback.?

 

[cantdog]

Comebacks are researchable. The fastest growing "denomination" right now is the Pentecostals. Worldwide, the fastest growing religion generally is Islam.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I didn't read past the 1st page, so I may be redundant, but Congress, under article 1, section 8 of the federal constitution, has the right to pass laws laws regarding the jurisdiction of federal courts under Clause 9: To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court; and its own legislative power to create a cause of action in federal courts.

Also under Art 1, sec 8, under the taxing and spending power, congress has the authority to legislate because that facility recieves medicare or some such federal funds, and even if the smallest fraction of it was used to keep the lights on in her room, then that legislation has a good chance of being sustained under that grounds.

I think what some people are confusing thing here with is called a bill of attainder, banned in Art 1, sec 9, Clause 3: No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

This bans law being passed which circumvent due process, meaning congress can not pass a law declaring you guilty of a crime.

They can legislate that this activty is a crime. They can create a police force (fbi) to arrest you, but the judiciary, under article 3 of the constitution, are the ones who must adjudicate your guilt, not congress.

I don't see why all the panties are in a wad over this. Congress does this kind of thing regularly.

Congress does not pass laws routinely setting aside final decisions of a state court. Congress does not routinely give the loosing litigants in a decided state court battle a de nuvo trial in the federal courts. Congress does not routinely strip a state court of it's jurisdiction over a matter that has heretofore been the province of the states.

If you want to sit down and rules layer with me, I freely admit, by twisiting interpretation to the edge of cedibility, Congress did not act "illegally" in passing this law. The intent however, is in no means routine, nor is the legislation, and trying to portray it as so is rediculous. It is unprecedented legislation, taken in the whole,and represents a clear and present danger to everyone who values the rule of law and thier rights under not only the Constitution, but under their state constittuions and under the laws passed and adjudicated within their state.