A different vote

[Freakzilla]

The Dukester
And probably the only smart thing
Just kidding

Drunken Idaho
Imagine, the entire human race as "off-white". Who the hell would we blame then?

Short people.


I've put some thought into this, and short people would get the shaft.

Thanks randy.

Dude, you've lost me. I'm Randy?

Randy Newman wrote the song Short People.

[GamePlayer]

Just do what we did; create a charter of rights and freedoms and eventually gay marriage is legal by default.

Sanctity of marriage is crap; us straight folks have already done a good enough job dragging the institution of marriage into the gutter and then pissing on it. I'd like to know when this magical time was when no one divorced and marriage was sacred, because my history book paints a different picture. People have been fucking around on each other since as far back as anyone can remember, and most people don't even care to try remembering. Apparently they are happier being ignorant.

However, the United States constitution may not be the problem, it's the codes. Maybe Omphalos can help me out a little more, but as I once had it explained to me by a yank, it's the United States Codes (U.S.C.) that ultimately have binding power in law and it's the interpretation of the codes (which are themselves interpretations of the constitution) which causes all the problems. For example, many states in the U.S. have for years protested the encroaching authority of the federal government in matters of law which have traditionally been the authority of the state. The federal government has accomplished this legal coup against the states in many cases by using the Codes to interpret the constitution in a way other than what was intended by the constitution itself. This has been used for numerous abuses, including taxation. The problem is the constitution is a non-specific document and the U.S.C. are a necessary evil requiring interpretation of the constitution for much more specific matters of law.

Bureaucracy at it's finest

[A Thing of Eternity]

The Dukester
And probably the only smart thing
Just kidding

Drunken Idaho
Imagine, the entire human race as "off-white". Who the hell would we blame then?

Short people.


I've put some thought into this, and short people would get the shaft.

Thanks randy.

Dude, you've lost me. I'm Randy?

Randy Newman wrote the song Short People.

Ah, yes. thank you.

[Omphalos]

Just do what we did; create a charter of rights and freedoms and eventually gay marriage is legal by default.

Sanctity of marriage is crap; us straight folks have already done a good enough job dragging the institution of marriage into the gutter and then pissing on it. I'd like to know when this magical time was when no one divorced and marriage was sacred, because my history book paints a different picture. People have been fucking around on each other since as far back as anyone can remember, and most people don't even care to try remembering. Apparently they are happier being ignorant.

However, the United States constitution may not be the problem, it's the codes. Maybe Omphalos can help me out a little more, but as I once had it explained to me by a yank, it's the United States Codes (U.S.C.) that ultimately have binding power in law and it's the interpretation of the codes (which are themselves interpretations of the constitution) which causes all the problems. For example, many states in the U.S. have for years protested the encroaching authority of the federal government in matters of law which have traditionally been the authority of the state. The federal government has accomplished this legal coup against the states in many cases by using the Codes to interpret the constitution in a way other than what was intended by the constitution itself. This has been used for numerous abuses, including taxation. The problem is the constitution is a non-specific document and the U.S.C. are a necessary evil requiring interpretation of the constitution for much more specific matters of law.

Bureaucracy at it's finest

This is essentially right, though its arguable. The USC is the body of law that Congress has enacted. Other bodies may legislate, so you get all the exectuive branches passing regulatins in the CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) too, but the USC is Congress' laws. The system works like this:

In order to pass a law Congress must have power to legislate in that area. The ultimate source of power for Congress (and the USSC and the executive branch) is the Constitution. That document explains what Congress may do. They have the choice of exercising those powers, or deferring them to some other body, such as the executive branches (cabinet) or the states. If a power is permitted Congress by the Constitution, but it is also an area that traditionally is subject to local control, then you get into a legal issue called Supremacy. In most cases Congressional law will trump local law. In that past that has created some disputes, and a we have a long history of debate about Federal Power in this country. Many traditionalists prefer that states remain as soverign as possible, while others prefer to have a uniform body of laws that apply equally across the 50 states. This sometimes gets us in trouble and makes for stupid debates, but some times good can be achieved. Let me give you an example of the good:

In the US in the 50's and 60's, before the Courts had really figured out how to properly apply the anti-slavery amendments and before the legislature had passed meaningful anti-discrimination law, there was a problem with hotels in the south. Many hotels (and lunch counters, and bus lines, and all kinds of other "public" conveyances and accomodations) refused to let blacks avail themselves of their services. The only laws on the books at that time were the anti-slavery amendments and three other andi-discrimination acts (one of which pertained to public accomodations but had in the 19th century been declared unconstitutional for some reason), and while they purported to apply to indivudual conduct (the only such provisions of the Constitution or the amendments that applies to something other than federal or state action), there really was no enforcement mechanism to prevent this. As a result many blacks who had travelled in the south to protest inequality and Jim Crow Laws essentialy became squatters. States did nothing to prevent this, and in fact Georgia passed a law supporting that discriminatory practice. In reviewing that law the USSC relied on power reserved to the Federal Government under the Commerce Clause, which essentially says that the Feds and the feds alone can control commerce in and among the states. They also ruled that travellers in the aggregate affected interstate commerce. Since Congress had never taken any action to give Georgia power over commerce, the court found that they had preserved that power to themselves, and on that basis invalidated the Georgia statute on the basis that it ran afoul of the constitution and that document pre-empted it, and also ruled that under the amendment this was illegal racism. That was the first steps towards really recognizing the Equal Protection Clause as a basis to correct social inequality. The court later used that ruling in a case called International Shoe to apply one state's procedural law to manufacturers to products which injured residents in state, but who themselves had never fisited the forum. That case was revolutionary, and it came from a dispute over pre-emption and supremacy.