the new health care?

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

1. I think the "hate crime" as an additional penalty falls in the "democratic socialists = social conservatives but with different ingredients" rule. For the record, I oppose additional sentencing for "hate crimes" as they strike me as thought crimes a la' Orwell's 1984.

2. Off the top of my head, I would suggest the attempt to modify the constitution to include and define one of the seven traditional christian sacraments could be an example.

Never heard of your example but did it get alot of support or was it just a few people trying to pass that bill. My point is you hear of a few things here and there but you never really see these things having strong support. I'm sure if we looked we could find stupid stuff on both sides that introduce crazy bills but without alot if any strong support from others in congress. The last thing I remember is the fight for a judge to post the ten commandments in or around the court building and I think that was a legal issue.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Never heard of your example but did it get alot of support or was it just a few people trying to pass that bill. My point is you hear of a few things here and there but you never really see these things having strong support. I'm sure if we looked we could find stupid stuff on both sides that introduce crazy bills but without alot if any strong support from others in congress. The last thing I remember is the fight for a judge to post the ten commandments in or around the court building and I think that was a legal issue.

Bush called for, and a significant number of social conservatives supported, the call for a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as being a between a man and woman. Federal Marriage Amendment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

As for the Ten Commandments, the courts ordered the block removed but the religious right then lobbied for a bill cutting off funding to enforce the order -

"The Hostettler bill, passed by the U.S. House of Representatives on July 23, 2004, indicates the strength of the religious right. While media attention focused on the two-ton granite monument of the Ten Commandments placed in the lobby of the Alabama Supreme Court by its Chief Justice Roy Moore, little, if any attention was focused on a House measure that passed by a vote of 260 - 161. The Hostettler bill blocks the federal government from spending any tax funds to enforce the 11th U.S. circuit Court of Appeals order to have the monument removed. During floor debate, the author of the bill insisted that Congress has the power to curb the courts."

Introduction

[Monksdown]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Bush called for, and a significant number of social conservatives supported, the call for a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as being a between a man and woman. Federal Marriage Amendment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

As for the Ten Commandments, the courts ordered the block removed but the religious right then lobbied for a bill cutting off funding to enforce the order -

"The Hostettler bill, passed by the U.S. House of Representatives on July 23, 2004, indicates the strength of the religious right. While media attention focused on the two-ton granite monument of the Ten Commandments placed in the lobby of the Alabama Supreme Court by its Chief Justice Roy Moore, little, if any attention was focused on a House measure that passed by a vote of 260 - 161. The Hostettler bill blocks the federal government from spending any tax funds to enforce the 11th U.S. circuit Court of Appeals order to have the monument removed. During floor debate, the author of the bill insisted that Congress has the power to curb the courts."

Introduction

The only check on Judicial power can come from the Executive's power to appoint. And from limitations placed on said court by a higher court through past decisions. That was my understanding. Anyone with me?

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Monksdown

The only check on Judicial power can come from the Executive's power to appoint. And from limitations placed on said court by a higher court through past decisions. That was my understanding. Anyone with me?

Congressional power over the courts

Congress checks the power of the judiciary mainly through its power to propose constitutional amendments and pass new laws. Congress also has the power to confirm the president's appointments to the federal bench, change the number of justices on the Supreme Court, and impeach and convict judges who commit treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

from a random website

[Monksdown]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

from a random website

Thanks random website.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Bush called for, and a significant number of social conservatives supported, the call for a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as being a between a man and woman. Federal Marriage Amendment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

As for the Ten Commandments, the courts ordered the block removed but the religious right then lobbied for a bill cutting off funding to enforce the order -

"The Hostettler bill, passed by the U.S. House of Representatives on July 23, 2004, indicates the strength of the religious right. While media attention focused on the two-ton granite monument of the Ten Commandments placed in the lobby of the Alabama Supreme Court by its Chief Justice Roy Moore, little, if any attention was focused on a House measure that passed by a vote of 260 - 161. The Hostettler bill blocks the federal government from spending any tax funds to enforce the 11th U.S. circuit Court of Appeals order to have the monument removed. During floor debate, the author of the bill insisted that Congress has the power to curb the courts."

Introduction

Well I look at a marriage as a man and a women and I have not been to church in around 10 or more years.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Well I look at a marriage as a man and a women and I have not been to church in around 10 or more years.

Good for you. I agree...but I don't care if gay people want to try and get married. In fact I don't care if ANYONE wants to get married. Why does the government care if people get married? Why is a marriage a sanctioned relationship anyways? That seems pretty dumb to me. What logical reasoning is behind this from a governmental standpoint? If the state got out of the marriage business it'd make this all a lot easier to logically handle.

[Monksdown]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

Good for you. I agree...but I don't care if gay people want to try and get married. In fact I don't care if ANYONE wants to get married. Why does the government care if people get married? Why is a marriage a sanctioned relationship anyways? That seems pretty dumb to me. What logical reasoning is behind this from a governmental standpoint? If the state got out of the marriage business it'd make this all a lot easier to logically handle.

taxes my friend. taxes.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

Good for you. I agree...but I don't care if gay people want to try and get married. In fact I don't care if ANYONE wants to get married. Why does the government care if people get married? Why is a marriage a sanctioned relationship anyways? That seems pretty dumb to me. What logical reasoning is behind this from a governmental standpoint? If the state got out of the marriage business it'd make this all a lot easier to logically handle.

First off gay people can find a church and get married everyday its just not recognized by the goverment. If they love each other so much why don't they just get married and move on with life?

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by firstdown

First off gay people can find a church and get married everyday its just not recognized by the goverment. If they love each other so much why don't they just get married and move on with life?

Sorta my point. Why does the government have to care either? Gays care because the gov't provides benefits to married people for some reason. What logical explanation exists for an arbitrary relationship to be sanctioned by the government so that those people can get benefits? It seems petty crappy to me that there are churches that will marry gay people but the gov't don't afford them the same legal sanction that we afford "normal" married people. That doesn't even remotely make sense or seem fair. The easiest way to fix it is to have the gov't not even care about married people from a legal standpoint.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

Sorta my point. Why does the government have to care either? What logical explanation exists for an arbitrary relationship to be sanctioned by the government?

Acknowledgement of a married relationship brings certain legal and tax status. I agree with your point though, the federal government should not be focused on legislating moral behavior unless there is a negative effect on others. There also shouldn't be an effect on how you're taxed whether single or married either (insert FairTax plug here).

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

Sorta my point. Why does the government have to care either? Gays care because the gov't provides benefits to married people for some reason. What logical explanation exists for an arbitrary relationship to be sanctioned by the government so that those people can get benefits? It seems petty crappy to me that there are churches that will marry gay people but the gov't don't afford them the same legal sanction that we afford "normal" married people. That doesn't even remotely make sense or seem fair. The easiest way to fix it is to have the gov't not even care about married people from a legal standpoint.

So I'm with you and now we will have to privatize social security and I'm all for that. Other than maybe a tax break SS is the only thing I can think of as far as goverment benefits. Most of the other stuff you can go to a lawyer and draw up legal papers that give you the other rights like when medical issues arise.