by Brig » Sep 24, 2004 @ 2:41am
"That's pretty fucking crucial. Not unless you feel that separation of powers--one of the fundamental qualities of our government--is not worth keeping. What the hell are you on?"
You got these things backwards.
No, you just don't understand.
"The judiciary exists to explain the laws and the legislative branch is tasked with creating new laws.
In other words, if a law gets passed , as long as it is deemed constitutional, there is nothing judiciary can do about it.
That is how it should be.
Who deems it constitutional (or not)? Think.
No, there is nothing wrong with that - as long as it is done in a democratic and legislative means and thru a decree by an unelected "high priest".
"High priest"? So, if you don't have religion, you don't have a say when it comes to issues of marriage. Perhaps you feel that non-believers shouldn't be allowed to marry as well?
" If you were a libertarian you'd resist the government's "ownership" of marriage."
That is correct . The government has no business there anyway but you weren't complaining about that were you ?
That had everything to do with your so-called "libertarianism". The fact is that you're not one.
You were complaining about "religious right" having undue power and cited this as an example of their "excesses", which if of course bullshit considering that there is no widespread support for this issue.
The problem isn't necessarily that the religious right has power, but that they have too much power. There needs to be some force to check them.
You lack comprehension. I'm not talking about the religious right having power only with respect to this issue, but in general. I don't agree with the religious right--so from my perspective any power in their hands is negative, unless it's checking an overly liberal political force. I don't think that's the case relative to my own value system.
In other words, they are NOT forcing their "narrow" view on the public but rather are trying to make sure that this narrow view is not forced on the public at large by a few unelected judges who have no business creating new laws anyway."
Judges don't create laws. They interpret the laws, as you said. However, when it comes to certain issues, it falls on the courts to make the decision of whether or not they adhere to limits defined directly or indirectly in the Constitution.
"That is correct. We will have to pay it off .
There are two ways going about it - one is to cut some other shit and used that money to pay for the new stuff and the other is to raise the taxes.
I am not sure how Republicans will go about it but I am sure as hell, how Democrats would try to solve that issue."
When exactly will they start doing this? In the next four years? HAHAHA. Please, explain Medicare to me. Also, explain Bush's leanings towards protectionism via subsidies. Explain to me why he can manage that, but won't fund his No Child Left Behind Act.
What will happen when the Congress is controlled by the GOP and the Presidency by the Democrats? They'll be less likely to spend. As it stands, the party is giving Bush free reign on spending.
"Drop your condescending altitude or get lost."
HAHAHA! Are you fucking serious? Like that'll happen.
Truth is a possession.
Master Debaters: Official Thread of the 2004 Pres. Debates
