|
Debate
Feb 19, 2005 9:13:07 GMT -5
Post by Hussar on Feb 19, 2005 9:13:07 GMT -5
;D Umm, Elros, I believe it's referred to as a "rhetorical question". I would think by now that you would realize that I do have a fairly decent grasp on how the American system works.
It's interesting to me that you mentioned Roe vs Wade. Here's a civil rights case, in this instance a woman's right to her body, that is brought before the Supreme Court. The SC struck down the abortion laws and made abortion legal in the US.
Not congress, not the senate and most certainly not the people. 9 people decided the fate of slightly more than 50% of 300 million people. Interesting.
If you were to take a vote today, I'm not sure if you could legalize abortion. You certainly wouldn't have at the time Roe Vs Wade was being discussed. There wouldn't have been a snowball's chance in a hot place that the American people would have legalized abortion or allowed their elected representatives to do so.
Yet, there is legalized abortion in America.
A civil rights decision made, not by majority, not by slanted polls fabricated to make a political point, not by any elected official. A civil rights decision made by 9 members of the bureaucracy.
The same as every other civil rights decision for the past century or so.
((Note, I hope you are not going to try to argue that majority rules in the case of democratic process is the same as a majority ruling in a legal case. I have more respect for you than that.))
|
|
|
Debate
Feb 19, 2005 16:28:15 GMT -5
Post by ElrosTarMinitarsus on Feb 19, 2005 16:28:15 GMT -5
Hmmm, this is a difficult one.
Here I go.
Because of the colonies’ experience under the British monarchy, the delegates wanted to avoid giving any one person or group absolute control in government. Under the Articles of Confederation, the government had lacked centralization, and the delegates didn’t want to have that problem again. To solve these problems, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention created a government with three separate branches, each with its own distinct powers. This system would establish a strong central government, while insuring a balance of power.
Governmental power and functions in the United States rest in three branches of government: the legislative, judicial, and executive. Article I of the Constitution defines the legislative branch and vests power to legislate in the Congress of the United States. The executive powers of the President are defined in Article 2. Article 3 places judicial power in the hands of one Supreme Court and inferior courts as Congress sees necessary to establish. A complete diagram of the branches of the U.S. Government may be found in the U.S. Government Manual (PDF, 9.7k).
Though in this system of a "separation of powers" each branch operates independently of the others. However, there are built in "checks and balances" to prevent tyrannous concentration of power in any one branch and to protect the rights and liberties of citizens. For example, the President can veto bills approved by Congress and the President nominates individuals to serve in the Federal judiciary; the Supreme Court can declare a law enacted by Congress or an action by the President unconstitutional; and Congress can impeach the President and Federal court justices and judges.
Also, during a rendering of a verdict or the reading of the Supreme Corts decision, it is ALWAYS a majority casting of the ruling that decides the case.
|
|
|
Debate
Feb 19, 2005 22:59:44 GMT -5
Post by Hussar on Feb 19, 2005 22:59:44 GMT -5
Thank you Elros. As I have a degree in Political Science from a fairly well respected university, I am of course, a complete and utter incompetent.
I do know how the system works. While, yes, it is a decision of the majority OF JUDGES in SC cases, it is hardly an example of MAJORITY RULES.
See, while the majority of Americans might oppose something, like, say, a woman's right to have an abortion, a simple majority of 9 people can decide the fact for the entire country. In the same way that, despite the fact that the majority of Americans in certain states supported miscengenation laws, the SC overruled the majority and ended those laws. Also, in the same way, I'm thinking that any law which defines marriage as only between a man and a woman will also be struck down as unconstitutional since it is openly biased against a minority.
I would think that it is pretty plain that there is a significant difference between the concept of democratic majority and allowing nine unelected people to decide the fates of millions. But, hey, apparently, quoting elementary school primers on how the govey works is somehow supporting Elros' point.
|
|
|
Debate
Feb 20, 2005 3:10:57 GMT -5
Post by khyron1144 on Feb 20, 2005 3:10:57 GMT -5
Where from does you get your data? what is the general opinion on this issue on your circle of friends and family? Explain how this is relevant to a passage suggesting your viewpoint may be the minority viewpoint. Expect what? My liberal environment? My whatever floats your boat as long as you don't sink anyone else's attitude? And please check this one out: shadowdragon.kelticmoose.com/Forum/viewtopic.php?t=102
|
|
|
Debate
Feb 20, 2005 14:05:53 GMT -5
Post by ElrosTarMinitarsus on Feb 20, 2005 14:05:53 GMT -5
Thank you Elros. As I have a degree in Political Science from a fairly well respected university, I am of course, a complete and utter incompetent. From were if I may ask? Well, Up until now, you have not acted like you have a degree in anything close to Poli-Sci. You have been beating around the bush and have come off as someone who does not grasp US politics. Thats why I was using all those "elementary school primers" as you say. I get my info from these and other institutes; Brookings Institution American Foreign Policy Council Baker Institute of Public Policy Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Commonwealth Institute Economic Policy Institute Heritage Foundation If you have a degree as you say in Poli Sci, then you would instantly recognize some of these names.
|
|
|
Debate
Feb 21, 2005 10:25:44 GMT -5
Post by Hussar on Feb 21, 2005 10:25:44 GMT -5
University of Western Ontario. Purple and proud. Heh. No knowledge of the workings of the US system. Hmm. I'm not the one insisting that 9 unelected officials constitutes a majority when discussing democratic issues. I'm also not the one insisting that civil rights issues in America are decided by majority rules. But, hey, no worries. The main problem here is one of conceptualization. I refuse to see this as anything other than a civil rights issue. In my view, you have a minority group being subjected to prejudicial treatment simply for belonging to that minority. I see gay marriage as exactly the same as miscengenation. On the other hand, Elros appears unwilling to see this as anything other than a moral issue. It appears that he is unwilling or incapable of disentangling his own moral judgements from this issue. For me, there is no moral issue here at all. This is a purely legal and civil rights issue. Now, I'm not saying that I'm right and he's wrong. I cannot really articulate Elros' point of view since it is so alien to my own in the same way that he apparently cannot see this any other way than what he has constructed. Which is a long winded way of saying that what we have here is a failure to communicate. Until one side or the other can begin to start seeing the other side's points, there can be no compromise. Personally, I don't think there should be a compromise. The whole "civil unions" thing stinks to high heaven IMO. That's the same as the whole "same but different" concept which died a painful death not that long ago. Any time the Constitution has been ammended to strip away freedoms, it has caused far more problems than it solved. Prohibition proved that. The Constitution and the laws represent everyone equally and fairly. To segregate one section of your population based on a particular characteristic is anathema to the struggles of the past century in America.
|
|
|
Debate
Feb 21, 2005 12:15:54 GMT -5
Post by khyron1144 on Feb 21, 2005 12:15:54 GMT -5
Am I being ignored or is it more important to debunk Hussar than me?
|
|
|
Debate
Feb 21, 2005 23:08:21 GMT -5
Post by Hussar on Feb 21, 2005 23:08:21 GMT -5
I think I just struck a nerve a little harder.
|
|
|
Debate
Feb 22, 2005 10:34:48 GMT -5
Post by Galadon on Feb 22, 2005 10:34:48 GMT -5
If you want I'll debunk you khyron. ha ha ha
|
|
|
Debate
Feb 22, 2005 10:38:18 GMT -5
Post by ElrosTarMinitarsus on Feb 22, 2005 10:38:18 GMT -5
Where from does you get your data? what is the general opinion on this issue on your circle of friends and family? My family and friends have noting to do with this. Im the one who is on line here. Simple: Obviously you didnt read the passage clear enough. It was very clear. HOW? " 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." Thats how. If YOU say so...... And please check this one out: shadowdragon.kelticmoose.com/Forum/viewtopic.php?t=102[/quote]already did... HUSSAR: You ARE right about one thing; we can agree on to disagreeing, I'll give ya that.
|
|