|
Debate
Feb 15, 2005 22:31:58 GMT -5
Post by Hussar on Feb 15, 2005 22:31:58 GMT -5
Yup, I'm sure that congresspeople and senators would surely vote to do the right thing. Just like they did when faced with miscengenation laws, segregation, women's rights, slavery, black voting rights, and pretty much every other social rights issue for the past few centuries.
The ONLY way to get something done in a democracy is to get your message heard. Now, that's going to mean that sometimes you hear messages you don't like. But, to not only deny social rights but also to deny freedom of speech, well, gee, that's real democratic. *snort*
It took several decades and massive rioting to end segregation. It took centuries and massive protests to get rights to women. Why should this be any different?
"I am against gay marriage because they are too pushy about it" What a joke. How else are they going to get anything if they don't speak up about it?
Because, as I've said for the umpteenth time, social rights are NOT DECIDED BY MAJORITY RULES!!!!!! If majority rules determined social rights, then women would not be voting and I could nip down to the local store and buy me a nice slave.
|
|
|
Debate
Feb 16, 2005 9:15:53 GMT -5
Post by ElrosTarMinitarsus on Feb 16, 2005 9:15:53 GMT -5
Like or not Hussar( in your case NOT) in this country, laws are made by the majority, social or not. Not always right, but thats how its done here. Im surprised you of all people didnt know that. Now THATS a joke!!!
|
|
|
Debate
Feb 16, 2005 9:25:47 GMT -5
Post by Hussar on Feb 16, 2005 9:25:47 GMT -5
Actually, again, you are mistaken. Laws are not made by the majority. Laws are made by Congress and Senate. They may represent the majority, although depending on the situation, they may not, but they are not the majority. American is a republic, not a direct democracy. At least it was the last time I checked.
If you're going to make statements on this issue, I suggest a little heavy reading. Check out various sources on the role of the US Supreme Court when dealing with Civil rights issues before making blanket statements regarding majority rule. While the Congress and Senate can pass all the laws they wish, if the Supreme Court deems them unConstitutional, they get sent back down.
Any law which infringes on the Constitutional rights of American citizens is unconstitutional by definition and can be unmade by the Supreme Court. As I said, in EVERY civil rights issue, the SC has final say. Until such time as your Constitution is changed, that remains true.
Doesn't matter what the civil rights issue is, it has required protest and aggitation to get things to change. This is something that, 25 years down the line, people will just shake their heads about the same way as we do about segregation laws.
|
|
|
Debate
Feb 16, 2005 9:36:20 GMT -5
Post by ElrosTarMinitarsus on Feb 16, 2005 9:36:20 GMT -5
Again YOUR wrong Hussar. Though the US is actually a Constitution-based federal republic; with strong democratic traditions, the laws are still mandated by the MAJORITY of the vote in Congress who were elected by the the American public.
While your contry has a constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary government to do what needs to be done.
|
|
|
Debate
Feb 16, 2005 9:55:53 GMT -5
Post by ElrosTarMinitarsus on Feb 16, 2005 9:55:53 GMT -5
Just so you know Hussar, here is the "Official" process for getting a bill in Congress:
The Legislative Process Introduction: Anyone may draft a bill; however, only members of Congress can introduce legislation, and by doing so become the sponsor(s). There are four basic types of legislation: bills, joint resolutions, concurrent resolutions, and simple resolutions. The official legislative process begins when a bill or resolution is numbered - H.R. signifies a House bill and S. a Senate bill - referred to a committee and printed by the Government Printing Office.
Step 1. Referral to Committee:
With few exceptions, bills are referred to standing committees in the House or Senate according to carefully delineated rules of procedure.
Step 2. Committee Action:
When a bill reaches a committee it is placed on the committee's calendar. A bill can be referred to a subcommittee or considered by the committee as a whole. It is at this point that a bill is examined carefully and its chances for passage are determined. If the committee does not act on a bill, it is the equivalent of killing it.
Step 3. Subcommittee Review:
Often, bills are referred to a subcommittee for study and hearings. Hearings provide the opportunity to put on the record the views of the executive branch, experts, other public officials, supporters and opponents of the legislation. Testimony can be given in person or submitted as a written statement.
Step 4. Mark Up:
When the hearings are completed, the subcommittee may meet to "mark up" the bill, that is, make changes and amendments prior to recommending the bill to the full committee. If a subcommittee votes not to report legislation to the full committee, the bill dies.
Step 5. Committee Action to Report A Bill:
After receiving a subcommittee's report on a bill, the full committee can conduct further study and hearings, or it can vote on the subcommittee's recommendations and any proposed amendments. The full committee then votes on its recommendation to the House or Senate. This procedure is called "ordering a bill reported."
Step 6. Publication of a Written Report:
After a committee votes to have a bill reported, the committee chairman instructs staff to prepare a written report on the bill. This report describes the intent and scope of the legislation, impact on existing laws and programs, position of the executive branch, and views of dissenting members of the committee.
Step 7. Scheduling Floor Action:
After a bill is reported back to the chamber where it originated, it is placed in chronological order on the calendar. In the House there are several different legislative calendars, and the Speaker and majority leader largely determine if, when, and in what order bills come up. In the Senate there is only one legislative calendar.
Step 8. Debate:
When a bill reaches the floor of the House or Senate, there are rules or procedures governing the debate on legislation. These rules determine the conditions and amount of time allocated for general debate.
Step 9. Voting:
After the debate and the approval of any amendments, the bill is passed or defeated by the members voting.
Step 10. Referral to Other Chamber:
When a bill is passed by the House or the Senate it is referred to the other chamber where it usually follows the same route through committee and floor action. This chamber may approve the bill as received, reject it, ignore it, or change it.
Step 11. Conference Committee Action:
If only minor changes are made to a bill by the other chamber, it is common for the legislation to go back to the first chamber for concurrence. However, when the actions of the other chamber significantly alter the bill, a conference committee is formed to reconcile the differences between the House and Senate versions. If the conferees are unable to reach agreement, the legislation dies. If agreement is reached, a conference report is prepared describing the committee members recommendations for changes. Both the House and the Senate must approve of the conference report.
Step 12. Final Actions:
After a bill has been approved by both the House and Senate in identical form, it is sent to the President. If the President approves of the legislation he signs it and it becomes law. Or, the President can take no action for ten days, while Congress is in session, and it automatically becomes law. If the President opposes the bill he can veto it; or, if he takes no action after the Congress has adjourned its second session, it is a "pocket veto" and the legislation dies.
Step 13. Overriding a Veto:
If the President vetoes a bill, Congress may attempt to "override the veto." This requires a two thirds roll call vote of the members who are present in sufficient numbers for a quorum.
Thier it be. I hope this lessen in American Government was enlightning.......
|
|
|
Debate
Feb 16, 2005 10:28:30 GMT -5
Post by Galadon on Feb 16, 2005 10:28:30 GMT -5
I figure Hussar cold use to hear from a different set of fingers. (typing in posts)
|
|
|
Debate
Feb 16, 2005 16:33:10 GMT -5
Post by khyron1144 on Feb 16, 2005 16:33:10 GMT -5
So, why should I have to be forced to accept something I and the MAJORITY of this country believe wrong listen to them? Do you really think the majority of the population of the country believes homosexuality to be morally wrong? I think if you asked a broad enough sample of the population, you'd find a small fringe-group on your side saying that gays will burn in Hell, and obviously on the other side an aproximately equally small group who actually are gay, and then a majority in the middle who are more or less straight but think that gays have a perfect right to do what they like, including get married. Of course that's just a guess. Most of my friends and relatives are liberal, very liberal. This shapes my view of what people are like. I find folks like Galadon to actually be kind of like minor, harmless deviants who make the world more interesting. That's just the way things look to me though. I got no claim on universal Truths.
|
|
|
Debate
Feb 16, 2005 17:49:44 GMT -5
Post by ElrosTarMinitarsus on Feb 16, 2005 17:49:44 GMT -5
Do you really think the majority of the population of the country believes homosexuality to be morally wrong? Most definately!!! Social institutions that relate to fundamental things like sex succeed in channelling impulse reliably by integrating culture and nature, and so can't be defined arbitrarily. They must be based on basic realities that don't change. The sexual bond between a man and a woman naturally gives rise to children, and therefore to a long-term connection that links the generations and transcends the immediate desires and interests of the parties. The institution of marriage strengthens, orders, and further defines that natural connection. It has therefore been a fundamental social institution in all times and places, unlike "gay marriage," a modern eccentricity. It follows that there is no reason at all to expect "gay marriage" to have anything like the institutional strength of normal marriage. Further, much of the strength of marriage has been its specificity, and its position in a network of related practices and understandings that define what sex is, what its place and importance in human life is, what men and women are, and what they owe each other. Recognition of "gay marriage" would overthrow those things, and so seriously weaken marriage as an institution while doing very little for homosexuals. Well, I expect that from a person who says thier an anarchist.
|
|
|
Debate
Feb 16, 2005 18:01:59 GMT -5
Post by Galadon on Feb 16, 2005 18:01:59 GMT -5
Look they're still here. No wonder it's so lonely in the new home.
|
|
|
Debate
Feb 16, 2005 22:55:34 GMT -5
Post by Hussar on Feb 16, 2005 22:55:34 GMT -5
So, while anyone can write the bill, only Congress can actually take that idea and start the process into making it law. The majority do not make laws in America, CONGRESS makes laws. Congress REPRESENTS the majority usually, but, then again it may not.
But you still haven't seen the point.
CIVIL RIGHTS ARE NOT DETERMINED BY MAJORITY RULES!! NEVER HAVE BEEN AND NEVER WILL!! IN EVERY CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUE, THE MAJORITY HAS TAKEN A BACK SEAT TO DOING WHAT IS RIGHT!!
|
|
|
Debate
Feb 17, 2005 13:56:23 GMT -5
Post by ElrosTarMinitarsus on Feb 17, 2005 13:56:23 GMT -5
So, while anyone can write the bill, only Congress can actually take that idea and start the process into making it law. The majority do not make laws in America, CONGRESS makes laws. Congress REPRESENTS the majority usually, but, then again it may not. THEY DO REPRESENT THE MAJORITY, THATS HOW THEY GET ELECTED! Wrong AGAIN Hussar!! When deciding ANY case that comes before it, the SUPREME COURT decides all cases on a MAJORITY rules system!! PERIOD!! Case in point; Roe vs Wade. the ruling was a follows: Majority by: Blackmun Burger, Douglas, Brennan, Stewart, Marshall, Powell Dissent by: White Dissent by: Rehnquist 7 to 2 MAJORITY RULES.
|
|
|
Debate
Feb 17, 2005 14:04:39 GMT -5
Post by ElrosTarMinitarsus on Feb 17, 2005 14:04:39 GMT -5
Here is a SMALL sampling of some CIVIL Liberties/Rights cases.
Lovan C. v. Dept. of Children and Families (December 7, 2004) Connecticut Appellate Court Abuse and Neglect, Civil Liberties and Civil Rigths : When does corporal punishment constitute child abuse for purposes of placement on the child abuse and neglect registry? That is the tricky question that the appellate court tackled in its controversial decision in Lovan C. The court, on its own volitio
Comm. on Human Rights and Opportunities v. Bd. of Educ. of the Town of Cheshire (August 31, 2004) Connecticut Supreme Court Civil Liberties and Civil Rights, Education : The Connecticut Supreme Court tackled the issue of whether pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 48a-58(a), the state Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities ("CHRO") has the jurisdictional authority to address a student's claim of racial discrimination aga
Roberson v. Giuliani (September 30, 2003) 2nd Circut U.S. Court of Appeals Civil Liberties and Civil Rights, Legal Representation : Attorney's Fees Case involves important analysis of "prevailing party" under attorneys' fees recovery statutes.
Prigge v. Ragaglia, et al. (August 12, 2003) Connecticut Supreme Court Abuse and Neglect, Civil Liberties and Civil Rights : In this relatively straight-forward case, the Supreme Court limited a claimants attempt to recover damages from state employees on the basis of the long-recognized doctrine of sovereign immunity...
W.R. et al. v. Conn. Dept. Of Children and Families (March 24, 2003) Federal District Court, District of Connecticut Civil Liberties, Civil Rights, Mental Health : In this important civil and disability rights class action filed on behalf of children in state care and custody, a federal district judge denied the bulk of the state’s motion to dismiss, primarily because the record did not support any significant findi
Gonzaga University v. Doe (Jun 20, 2002) US Supreme Court Civil Rights, Civil Liberties : Civil Rights In an extremely important late term decision, the US Supreme Court recently held that one provision of the Federal Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) does not create a right enforceable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983...
Westside Mothers v. Haveman (May 16, 2002)
Civil Liberties, Medicaid : In Westside Mothers v. Haveman, a far reaching Medicaid and federal/civil rights law decision issued on May 16, 2002, the sixth circuit federal court of appeals reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment on all substantive law issues and part
In re Steven M. (Feb 26, 2002) CT Appellate Division Juvenile Justice, Mental Health, Civil Liberties : In an important decision limiting the Department of Children and Families’ inherent power to unilaterally transfer a mentally disabled juvenile delinquent from a Department facility to a correctional institution...
Garcia v. SUNY Health Sciences Ctr. of Brooklyn, et al (Sep 25, 2001) US Court of Appeals Civil Liberties : Civil Rights; Disabilities Important Second Circuit case that provides a precedent setting standard for claimants who seek money damages against governmental entities under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act...
Buckhannon Bd. and Home Care, Inc. v. West Virginia Dept. of Health and Human Resources (May 29, 2001) US Supreme Court Civil Liberties : Attorneys' Fees In a potentially far reaching decision, the United States Supreme Court ruled that plaintiffs may no longer seeks to recover attorneys fees under the "catalyst theory"...
Section 1983 Update - Medicaid (May 25, 2001) US District Court Civil Liberties : Medicaid A recent federal district court case examined a Medicaid recipient's private right of action against a state agency in federal court. A federal district court in Michigan found...
And when they go to trial, they are either decided by a JURY or in appeals court a 3 men(woman). The MAJORITY has the FINAL SAY!!
|
|
|
Debate
Feb 18, 2005 3:10:24 GMT -5
Post by Hussar on Feb 18, 2005 3:10:24 GMT -5
And who elects supreme court judges?
|
|
|
Debate
Feb 18, 2005 10:25:21 GMT -5
Post by Galadon on Feb 18, 2005 10:25:21 GMT -5
I'll be discussing this on the other site.
|
|
|
Debate
Feb 18, 2005 16:43:32 GMT -5
Post by ElrosTarMinitarsus on Feb 18, 2005 16:43:32 GMT -5
And who elects supreme court judges? NOBODY!!! What is the process for making a Supreme Court nomination? Unlike federal district court judgeships, where proposed nominees often traditionally originate from members of Congress, the nomination of a Supreme Court Justice is very much driven by the President and senior White House staff, with input and legwork from the Department of Justice. Starting from a "short list" of desirable or plausible candidates, staff analyze past judicial decisions, writings, speeches, employment history, and other information to develop a profile of a candidate and to identify any potential obstacles to their successful confirmation. What is the role of the Senate? Under Article II, section 2, clause 2 of the Constitution, the role of the Senate is to provide its advice and consent to a nomination. Key Senators, particularly those on the Senate Judiciary Committee, typically are consulted in advance by the White House about the merits of potential nominees. After a nomination is made, it is assigned to the Judiciary Committee. The Committee holds a public hearing and a subsequent vote is taken to report the nomination to the full Senate. A majority vote of the Senate is required to confirm a nominee. Tellsus how much you REALLY know about the US.......
|
|