Topic: Uh... somebody explain to me again why this is an issue? (Read 34806 times)

Demosthenes · « **Reply #25 on:** February 17, 2004, 12:40:25 PM »

Quote from: TheJudge

It shows an imgae that says "No hotlinking". Clear your browser.

I just did. It still shows up just fine for me.

In fact, the way I ran across it was on another site where someone had hotlinked it in a discussion board. It showed up fine for me there too.

*shrugs*

Anonymous · « **Reply #26 on:** February 17, 2004, 01:39:20 PM »

Browser specific?

Demosthenes · « **Reply #27 on:** February 17, 2004, 03:10:55 PM »

Beats me. I'm using MyIE2 at the moment, since I'm at work, which still uses IE6 to render webpages.

Then again, a lot of times I see images that people link from geocities as well, even when others are complaining of red x's.

I dunno.

pbsaurus · « **Reply #28 on:** February 18, 2004, 03:35:15 PM »

I had the nohotlinking image then after I pasted the address into my browser now the actual image is all over. That's some funny shit.

Living in the Bay Area, Gavin Newsome gets some brownie points from me for staging this. I'm hoping this all goes to the Supremes soon so that the fundies can be smacked down sooner rather than later.

xolik · « **Reply #29 on:** February 24, 2004, 05:56:41 PM »

Forgive the low level necromancy, but I had to dig this up again and post this little gem. Enjoy!

http://www.markfiore.com/animation/agenda.html

Rico · « **Reply #30 on:** February 25, 2004, 12:50:14 PM »

I don't get it? What's wrong with State's Rights?

Vespertine · « **Reply #31 on:** March 06, 2004, 01:46:33 PM »

I'm going to resurrect a dead thread because I've got a legal question. I'm not well read on the process of overturning an amendment. Let's say, for conversation's sake, that an amendment does get passed. Is that the final word on the matter or, can the Supreme Court overturn an amendment on constitutional grounds? I know that it can be repealed through a voting process at the state level, but is there judicial recourse for an amendment that flies in the face of everything that has (constitutionally) come before?

Uh, that was me. I didn't realize that I wasn't logged in. Sorry.

EDIT by catwritr: What guest post? :

Scuzzy · « **Reply #32 on:** March 06, 2004, 05:06:31 PM »

Hey whatever happened to Life, Liberty and Persuit of happiness??

Law · « **Reply #33 on:** March 06, 2004, 10:50:48 PM »

Quote from: Scuzzy

Hey whatever happened to Life, Liberty and Persuit of happiness??

Never existed, the original quote was "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Property." (It wasn't until later that property=happiness in America)

And Vespertine (nice avatar...), I've never thought about it, but I don't think the Supreme Court has the power to review constitutional amendments without a challenge that comes up through the courts. There is certainly no constitutional provision for it and I don't think the theory of judicial review can be extended to review the actions of the states in the ratification process.

I may have to do some reading now...

pbsaurus · « **Reply #34 on:** March 08, 2004, 06:36:51 PM »

Woo hoo! Vespertine! We need to get those soaped up!

Vespertine · « **Reply #35 on:** March 09, 2004, 10:36:23 PM »

Quote from: pbsaurus

Woo hoo! Vespertine! We need to get those soaped up!

You're the one with the photoshop skills my friend! By the way, I created that avatar just for you.

Vespertine · « **Reply #36 on:** March 09, 2004, 10:39:44 PM »

Quote from: Law

Quote from: Scuzzy
Hey whatever happened to Life, Liberty and Persuit of happiness??

Never existed, the original quote was "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Property." (It wasn't until later that property=happiness in America)

And Vespertine (nice avatar...), I've never thought about it, but I don't think the Supreme Court has the power to review constitutional amendments without a challenge that comes up through the courts. There is certainly no constitutional provision for it and I don't think the theory of judicial review can be extended to review the actions of the states in the ratification process.

I may have to do some reading now...

Find anything yet? I guess I wasn't necessarily thinking in terms of 'stand alone' judicial review. I was asking about it in reference to a lawsuit. Once an amendment is passed, is that the final word or can it be challenged via a lawsuit?

Binoboy · « **Reply #37 on:** March 10, 2004, 12:50:42 AM »

Once it's an amendment, I'm pretty sure that's it.
An amendment can't be sued as being unconstitutional; it IS the Constitution.
I can't think of any instances of lawsuits like this right now because it's late, but there must be volumes of them...

Only way I know of to bring about repealling an amendment is making ALOT of noise....
Sure as hell must be tougher than just stopping the amendment from getting in...

And don't worry. There's no way this can pass.
Didn't Bush I's embarassing brainchild of a Flag Burning Amendment have more support than this? And what happened to THAT one?

xolik · « **Reply #38 on:** March 10, 2004, 01:02:41 AM »

Quote from: Binoboy

Only way I know of to bring about repealling an amendment is making ALOT of noise....

Yeah, like when we tried the "No Booze, Dammit." amendment, which was followed by the "Boy, we fscked up, never mind" amendment. Al CaP0N3 p0wn3z J00!1!!11!11

Law · « **Reply #39 on:** March 10, 2004, 09:59:21 AM »

The three major law reviews I checked were silent, so I think that a challenge must be raised during ratification or it's a done deal. An amendment can always be repealled, but no, I don't think you can bring a legal challenge to the Constitution itself.

Demosthenes · « **Reply #40 on:** March 10, 2004, 10:11:06 AM »

Quote from: Vespertine

Once an amendment is passed, is that the final word or can it be challenged via a lawsuit?

Nope. That's like sawing off the legs of the chair you're currently standing on.

I still think it's admitting defeat for the Right to be calling for an amendment about this.

That tells me that they are essentially ceding the point that same sex marriage is a right, and that the equal protection clause covers and protects that right.

If you let people in general marry, you can't deny one group that same privilege without running afoul of the 14th amendment, period.

The neat thing is, their new amendment will basically have the effect of changing the equal protection part of the US Constitution to work like:

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.... unless that person is a homosexual.

But even a lot of Republicans see that for what it is, and that's part of why it won't pass. It sets a dangerous precedent to openly discriminate in the Constitution itself and present that as being an acceptable way for a civilized society to behave.

One thing I'm not sure of, however, is the State constitutions versus the US constitution. Currently Minnesota (as well as a number of other states) are in the process of attempting to amend their State constitutions to define marriage as "between one man and one woman ONLY".

I know that states cannot make laws that violate the US constitution... but what about amending their constitutions to that effect? Isn't that basically asking to be smacked down as well?

I mean, individual states cannot amend their constitutions to build segregation into them, as that would clearly violate the 14th amendment... doesn't amending the state constitution to deny gays equal protection also violate that?

If so, such activities are just exercises in futility.

Law · « **Reply #41 on:** March 10, 2004, 01:12:31 PM »

Quote from: Demosthenes

I know that states cannot make laws that violate the US constitution... but what about amending their constitutions to that effect? Isn't that basically asking to be smacked down as well?

I mean, individual states cannot amend their constitutions to build segregation into them, as that would clearly violate the 14th amendment... doesn't amending the state constitution to deny gays equal protection also violate that?

If so, such activities are just exercises in futility.

Yup.
Yup.
Definitely, but they make the activists feel good. At least until a Judge raps them on the forehead with his gavel.

Oh, and Demo:

Quote

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.... unless that person is a homosexual.

That's funny shit.

Demosthenes · « **Reply #42 on:** March 10, 2004, 01:26:17 PM »

They seem to like to add things like that in their interpretation of a number of amendments to the US Constitution.

For instance, just ask most of the supporters of (former) Judge Moore in the fine state of Alabama how they think the 1st Amendment reads and they'll tell you:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion unless it's Christianity, since the United States is a Christian nation, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, which means we can put big monuments to our particular religion on public property to the exclusion of all others; or abridging the freedom of speech except that which we consider to be dirty or just about anything we happen to disagree with, you filthy traitor, or of the press except the "liberal" press, which isn't real news anyway; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble in any fine, Christian church, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances except women and minorities, since they should just just their uppity mouths and do as they're told, y'hear?"

And I don't even want to THINK of what Ashcroft thinks the 4th and 5th Amendments read as...

*shudders*

xolik · « **Reply #43 on:** March 10, 2004, 03:40:04 PM »

^^^

Soda clean up on Monitor one please!

Demosthenes · « **Reply #44 on:** March 10, 2004, 03:54:14 PM »

Thank you, thank you. I'm here all week. Don't forget to tip your serving staff.

And I mean that in the dirtiest way possible.

pbsaurus · « **Reply #45 on:** March 10, 2004, 08:14:40 PM »

Quote from: Vespertine

Quote from: pbsaurus
Woo hoo! Vespertine! We need to get those soaped up!

You're the one with the photoshop skills my friend! By the way, I created that avatar just for you.

Best present I've ever received!

pbsaurus · « **Reply #46 on:** March 10, 2004, 08:18:29 PM »

Demo, dude, I think you're reading their minds...

Binoboy · « **Reply #47 on:** March 11, 2004, 12:38:14 AM »

Ninth Amendment. Crazy stuff there.
I think Lawrence v. Texas scared the crap outta them....

So... is xolik banned or...?

Demosthenes · « **Reply #48 on:** March 11, 2004, 09:15:15 AM »

Quote from: pbsaurus

Demo, dude, I think you're reading their minds...

Trust me, it's not difficult. After arguing with those kinds of people for years (even locally... yes, we have uptight, bigoted right-wingers right here in Minnesota as well), I know their position all too well.

The sad part is, a lot of them genuinely think that's how the Constitution works.

The Founding Fathers were all churchgoing, bible-banging Christians
This is a Christian Nation™
It's the land of the free, as long as you're Christian
Laws based on the Bible are fine and dandy
Rules in Leviticus you disagree with (if you're a Christian) are "ceremonial" and not necessary (like not eating shellfish, or animals with cloven hooves), but rules in Leviticus you DO agree with (pretty much just the stuff about homosexuality) should be followed by EVERYBODY, even non-Christians
You're free to exercise your religion, as long as you're Christian
The Bible should be taught in school, since it's accurate, unbiased "history", even to non-Christians
Any attempt to get equal treatment for other religions is considered "persecution against Christianity" :roll: [/list:u]
It goes on and on.

Contrary to how it may seem, I actually have nothing against Christians. Just Christians that read that above list and say "What? I don't get it... what's wrong with that?". THOSE Christians I have a problem with.

I never cease to be amazed by the ones that will claim that Christians in the United States are facing "more and more persecution" and in the very same breath advocate amending the Constitution to officially persecute some OTHER arbitrary group of people that never did them any harm.

It just strikes me as unbelievably dense.

:evil:

xolik · « **Reply #49 on:** March 11, 2004, 12:54:01 PM »

Quote from: Binoboy

So... is xolik banned or...?

What's this about a banning?

As usual, Demo has hit the nail on the head.

News:

Recent Forum Posts

Shout Box

Author Topic: Uh... somebody explain to me again why this is an issue? (Read 34806 times)

Anonymous